Ellice Wakelin

Investigating the effects of trampling on ribwort

plantain (Plantago lanceolata).
Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................. 1
Aim........................................................................................................................ 1
Hypothesis............................................................................................................. 2
Rationale................................................................................................................ 2
Risk assessment.................................................................................................... 4
Strategy................................................................................................................. 5
Trial runs................................................................................................................ 6
Method................................................................................................................. 12
Final data............................................................................................................. 15
Modifications........................................................................................................ 19
Analysis............................................................................................................... 20
Evaluation............................................................................................................ 22
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 22
Bibliography......................................................................................................... 22

Abstract
This investigation was carried out at Slapton Ley national nature reserve on the
shingle ridge in early October to investigate the effects of trampling on the
growth of P. lanceolata. The plant growth was measured by the length of the
leaves after discovering that there was a strong correlation between leaf length
and leaf biomass. The plant growth was measured in a heavily trampled area on
the shingle ridge and an exclosure plot that is fenced off from public access so
has had very little trampling. The results showed that P. lanceolata leaves were
significantly longer in the non-trampled area, supporting the hypothesis.

Aim
The aim of this report is to investigate how trampling affects plant growth, by
taking data from a heavily trampled area and an area of minimal trampling.
Trampling damages the plants and causes soil compaction which could affect the
plants and their growth.

Hypothesis
1

Ellice Wakelin
There will be a significant difference in the growth of P. lanceolata, measured by
leaf length, between a trampled and a non-trampled area, measured by soil
compaction. The plant growth will be higher in the non-trampled area.

Rationale
In 2003, on the shingle ridge 4 exclosure plots (grid reference: SX829440 [1]) were
established for research purposes, this is where the investigation was carried
out.
The shingle ridge at Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve is 3.5km long and
separates the Slapton Ley, a freshwater lake, from the sea [2]. The shingle
provides a very unstable environment; it greatly lacks in nutrients and doesnt
hold water very well. Plants will not be found low down on the beach where the
tide will wash over them as it is too regularly disturbed. Further up the beach,
past the tide line, some plants have started to grow. These are pioneer species,
they have to be well adapted to the harsh conditions so close to the sea, for
example they have very waxy leaves to prevent them from losing too much
water. Further up the shore where these pioneer species have been able to grow
for a longer period of time and have formed a thin layer of soil. Plants at this
level still have to be able to survive with low nutrient levels and little water as
the soil is only a thin layer. This process continues further up the shingle ridge
and is called succession.
Slapton Ley is a National Nature Reserve (NNR) and a Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) therefore conservation and management of organisms is
important. This also means that there are a large amount of people who come to
visit, both scientists and tourists, hence there is a lot of trampling because so
many people visit.
Trampling can create many problems for plants, for example:

Physical damage to plants by removal of growing tips and crushing

occurs.
Damage may also reduce flowering.
Trampling, like mowing, results in different heights of vegetation so
competition for light might be a factor.
Deposition of litter and dog fouling may cause changes in the soil mineral
content though any change is difficult to measure without sophisticated
equipment[3].

Ellice Wakelin

Figure 1. Showing how soil compaction can affect plant growth[3].

Figure 1 shows some additional factors that soil compaction creates that can
reduce plant growth, and further support the hypothesis.
P. lanceolata was chosen over other plants because it is very abundant. This is
good because it means that the destruction that I cause will have a smaller
overall impact because there is a larger population and it is not a rare plant.
Also, being more abundant, it will give more valid and accurate results, this is
because there are more plants available to measure in the area, this will allow for
a larger sample size which will provide more accurate data because any
anomalies will have a smaller effect on the overall result. P. lanceolata is also
easily identifiable; it has spear-shaped leaves which form a rosette at the base of
the plant. Short stems grow from its leaves, with compact heads and protruding,
white stamens. The flower heads gradually turn brown and seed [4]. P. lanceolata

Figure 2. Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata)[5].

is pictured below in figure 2.

Ribwort plantain (P. lanceolata) is less well adapted to heavily trampled sites. It is
less tolerant to physical damage and is less likely to grow in waterlogged soil [3].
3

Ellice Wakelin
This also supports my hypothesis because it implies that P. lanceolata is not able
to grow as well in trampled sites, and therefore should have poorer growth
resulting in smaller leaves.
Results may indicate how trampling has an effect on the growth of plants such as
P. lanceolata and whether we should have more areas that are closed off from
frequent trampling to promote the growth of plants that are not as well adapted
to soil compactness and the other factors that stem from trampling, especially as
the shingle ridge is quite an unstable environment already. Also, Slapton is a NNR
and SSSI which means that management and protection of the organisms is
important. Furthermore, P. lanceolata is also used for medicinal purposes so
knowing how it is affected by trampling would be useful for determining
conditions for efficient growth and also to prevent the plant growing smaller and
becoming less useful.

Risk assessment
Hazard

Risk

Roads

Being hit

Likelihood
1=unlikely
2=small
possibility
3=quite
likely
4=likely
5=very
likely

Severity
1= very
minor
injuries
(small
scratches
and
bruises)
2=not very
severe (eg.
larger cuts)
3=quite
severe (eg.
Cuts or
other
minor
injuries
that would
need
medical
attention)
4=very
severe (eg.
broken
bones)
5=possible
risk of
death
5

Overall risk
(likelihood
x severity)

Precaution

Fluorescent
4

Ellice Wakelin
A379
main road

by a car

Fenced
exclosure
plots

Tripping
over when
stepping
over the
wire fence

Uneven
ground

Slips, trips
and falls

Sharp and
stinging
plants

Cuts,
pricks and
stings

Hot
crucibles
after
cooking
soil
samples in
the ovens
Hammerin
g in the
infiltration
ring
Weather
(Rain)

Burns

Hitting self
with the
hammer

Slipping on
wet shingle

1
Weather
forecast
shows that
it is
unlikely to
rain

jackets
Staying in
groups
Taking care
when
working
near or
crossing
the road.
Be careful
when
climbing
over the
fence,
dont be
too hasty
Wear
suitable
footwear.
Take care
Wear long
clothes and
be aware
of the
plants you
are around
specifically
in long
vegetation.
Leave the
samples to
cool down
for a while
after being
in the
oven.
Take care
when using
the
hammer.
Wear
suitable
footwear
and take
care when
walking on
slippery
surfaces

Ellice Wakelin
The overall risk is out of 25. A result of 25 would most definitely be too
dangerous to consider going out into the field. A result of an overall risk of over
12 may be too risky and the method would have to be reconsidered.
I also need to consider some of the ethics involved in this investigation. I will
need to take care to cause as little disturbance to the ecosystem as possible, as
being very destructive could cause harm to the whole ecosystem because all the
organisms are interdependent.

Strategy
The abiotic factor that I will be changing is the amount of trampling. This would
be impossible to directly measure because it is constantly changing as people
continue to walk over the area, making it very hard to obtain a valid
measurement. A measure of trampling would be made by finding the average
force per unit of time per unit area; this would involve knowing the amount of
people walking over the area and their weights. However, even if I could get this
data, it would still not be accurate because every person walks differently
exerting a different force on the ground, despite their mass. Therefore, I will need
to find a different way to measure the amount of trampling and I think the best
way to do this is by measuring soil compactness, because soil compaction is a
major effect of trampling[3]. I could do this with an infiltration device, or the pin
drop method.
My dependent variable will be plant growth; I have chosen to use a calibration
curve of leaf biomass against leaf length to measure this. Measuring the whole
plant biomass would have been more accurate, because it accounts for all the
growth of the plant, both visible and invisible from above ground. However I had
to consider the damage to the environment that removing whole plants would
have, especially as the areas I am working in are used for a lot of other research

Trial runs
Questions

What would be the best way to measure the plant growth?

As previously discussed, plant biomass would be the best measure of plant
growth, however I have established that this would not be ethically
feasible as it is far too destructive to the environment that I am working in.
Leaf biomass is an accurate and reliable way of showing plant growth
because it is an accurate measure of the whole leaf. However it is an
ethical limitation of this method is that it is very destructive to the plants,
especially when large numbers of people are doing similar investigations
constantly. Furthermore, I was working in an exclosure plot which is used
in many investigations to look at how the plants would grow without
disturbance from humans; therefore it is important that I cause as little
disturbance as possible while taking my measurements. Also, measuring
6

Ellice Wakelin
the biomass of leaves also has practical limitations such as it is very time
consuming as they need to be dried in the oven for a few hours, which is
also a problem because the centre have limited space in the oven, so
measuring the biomass of each leaf would not be feasible. Therefore I will
not be measuring the biomass of whole plants or measuring the biomass
of each leaf I need to measure. So I need to find another method that will
provide me with data that is also accurate and reliable but with fewer
ethical and practical limitations. Looking at the P. lanceolata plants there is
a significant correlation between the length of the leaves and the size of
the plant. If I can show that there is a significant correlation between the
leaf biomass and the leaf length by plotting a calibration curve, then I can
use leaf length to measure the plant growth, as it isnt harmful to the
plants and it is a lot quicker to measure. A strong correlation has a value
very close to 1, which is how I will know if the correlation is significant
enough to use.
The correlation curve needs to be representative of the whole area,
therefore I will need measurements from the shortest leaves to the longest
leaves and a good spread of lengths inbetween.

The calibration curve shows a strong positive correlation with an R 2 value

of 0.9798 which is very close to 1 and therefore shows a significant
correlation. Therefore, as I have shown a significant correlation between
leaf length and biomass, I can use leaf length as a measure of growth in
Graph 1. Calibration curve showing the relationship between leaf length and leaf biomass
my main investigation.
Using this graph I can calculate the leaf biomass from the leaf leaf length
that I measure during the final investigation.

What is the best method to measure soil compaction?

One possible method to measure soil compactness is using a
penetrometer, however this is not always very accurate as it can be easily
affected by stones to give unreliable data and as I am working on the
shingle ridge where there will be many stones, I do not think this would
give the most accurate data. A second method is constant head
infiltrometry however this is very time consuming which makes it hard to
get enough data, also in my trial run I found a lot of the equipment was
leaking and it didnt work very well in the shingle. Therefore, I chose to
use the infiltrometer ring. I filled it with water and timed how long it took
7

Ellice Wakelin
for all the water to be absorbed into the ground. I made sure that the ring
was the same depth in the ground every time so that there was the same
volume of water draining into the ground for each measurement.
To calculate the infiltration rate I need to know the volume of water that I
put in each time, this can be easily calculated using the diameter (d) and
height (h)of the ring and using the equation:

V =

d 2
h
2

()

Diameter = 10.5cm
Height = 16.2 5.0cm = 11.2cm
Volume = 969.81 cm3
Then to calculate the infiltration rate you divide the volume by the time
taken for the water to infiltrate into the soil. This is a table of my results
from the trial run:
Inside exclosure plot
Time (s)
Rate (cm3s-1)
34.35
28.23
26.17
37.06
35.29
27.48
39.97
24.26

Outside exclosure plot

Time (s)
Rate (cm3s-1)
63.91
15.17
54.82
17.69
68.78
14.10
74.59
13.00

Table 1. Table to show the infiltration rates of the soil in both

areas

What abiotic factors will I need to measure and take into

consideration tomorrow?
In this investigation I needed to ensure that I was actually measuring the
effect of soil compactness on the growth of P. lanceolata, and that there
were not any other confounding factors that were affecting the growth. I
know that there is no reason why the light intensity should be different as
there is no canopy over either plot, and they are at the same height above
sea level, same aspect and very close together, therefore I can eliminate
light intensity as a factor because it does not vary enough between the
two plots to have any effect on my measurements, I am also eliminating
wind velocity for the same reasons. I can also eliminate soil pH because
plantain occurs naturally over a wide range of soil acidity (pH 4.27.8) [6],
and there is also no reason why the pHs should differ between the two
areas as they are so similar. Finally, I will also not need to measure soil
temperature because it will not have an impact on my results, and it
should be very similar between the two plots because they are getting the
same light intensity, they are the same distance from the sea and so they
shouldnt differ.
Soil depth

Ellice Wakelin
My research shows that plantain is capable of utilising nutrients from
deeper soil layers[6], which implies that soil depth could be a factor that
would affect the growth of plantain which is why I will be measuring it, to
see if there is a difference between the two areas because if it cant be
controlled then it needs to be measured and taken into account.
For soil depth I will take a running mean, so that if my results show that
there is a difference in soil depth between the exclosure plot and outside
the exclosure plot then I will know how many measurements I will need to
take in my main method to obtain a representative sample of the soil
depth in that area for more accurate results.
To measure soil depth I used a pin from a point frame quadrat and pushed
it into the ground until I felt an increase in resistance and found it hard to
push the pin in further, I then placed my index finger and thumb at the
point on the pin that is just above the ground and pulled it out. Using a
ruler, I measured the length of the pin from the end to my finger and
thumb.

Inside the exclosure plot

Sampl Soil
Running Running
e
depth
total
mean
numbe (cm)
r
1
8.1
8.1
8.10
2
8.3
16.4
8.20
3
7.9
24.3
8.10
4
6.8
31.1
7.78
5
5.9
37.0
7.4
6
5.8
42.8
7.13
7
6.5
49.3 Depth 7.04
(cm)
8
7.4
56.7
7.09
9
7.0
63.7
7.08

Outside
Sampl
e
numb
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

the exclosure plot

Soil
Running
depth
total
(cm)

Running
mean

3.9
5.4
4.3
5.6
4.6
4.1
5.3
4.7
4.5

3.90
4.65
4.53
4.80
4.76
4.65
4.74
4.74
4.71

3.9
9.3
13.6
19.2
23.8
27.9
33.2
37.9
42.4

Table 2. Table to show the running mean of the soil depth

in both areas.

Graph 2. Box and Whisker plot showing the difference in soil depth between the two areas.

Ellice Wakelin
This box and whisker plot (graph 2) shows a difference in soil depth
between the two areas. This could be a result of more plant growth in the
non-trampled area, and therefore a faster development of soil. However,
this could be a confounding factor as there is no proof that it is caused by
a higher plant growth and not that it causes a higher plant growth.
This abiotic factor will need to be measured in the final method and due to
the result of my running mean I will make 6 measurements from each
area.

Soil moisture
To measure the soil moisture content I took soil samples from inside and
outside the exclosure plot, making sure that the tubes were labelled to
avoid mixing them up. I used a trowel to dig up some soil and filled up a
soil sample pot. Back at the centre, I collected some crucibles. Then for
each sample, I weighed the empty crucible and then put the soil sample
into the crucible and label it with a pencil and weigh the mass of the
crucible and wet mass, I then repeated this for each sample. I put all the
samples into an oven at about 110C for about 2 hours so that all the
water is evaporated. When the samples have cooled enough to be
handled, I re-weighed each crucible and the dry mass of soil. Then I used
the formula:

soil moisture ( )=

wd
100
wc

(Where w is the wet mass of the soil in the crucible and d is the dry mass
in the crucible and c is the mass of the crucible.)
I have taken a running mean of the soil moisture (table 3) to find out both
whether there is a difference in the moisture content between the two
areas and also to decide on the sample size if I need to measure it in my
final method.

Inside the exclosure plot

Sampl Soil
Running
e
moistur
total
numbe e (%)
r
1
2.27
2.27
2
1.53
3.80
3
5.41
9.21
4
9.96
19.17
5
1.66
20.83
6
2.69
23.52

Running
mean

2.27
1.90
3.07
4.79
4.17
3.92

Outside
Sampl
e
numb
er
1
2
3
4
5
6

the exclosure plot

Soil
Running
moistur
total
e (%)

Running
mean

1.62
4.01
0.27
2.47
1.89
4.16

1.62
2.82
1.97
2.09
2.05
2.40

1.62
5.63
5.90
8.37
10.26
14.42

Table 3. Table to show the percentage soil moisture in both

areas

Soil organic matter

10

Ellice Wakelin
After weighing the dry mass of the soil (as done previously when
measuring the soil moisture content), put the crucibles into an oven at
400C for about 4 hours. When the samples come out of the oven, take a
measurement of the burnt mass. This mass will be all the inorganic
matter, because the organic matter has all been burnt off. Then calculate
the percentage organic matter using this equation:

organic matter ( )=

db
100
dc

(Where b is the mass of the burnt soil and the crucible, d is the mass of
the dry soild and crucible and c is the mass of the crucible.)
Inside the exclosure plot
Sample Soil
Running
number organic total
matter
(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6

2.12
2.72
10.04
3.73
2.48
3.69

2.12
4.84
14.88
18.61
21.09
24.78

Running
mean

2.12
2.42
4.96
4.65
4.22
2.75

Outside
Sampl
e
numbe
r
1
2
3
4
5
6

the exclosure plot

Soil
Running
organi total
c
matter
(%)
0.68
0.68
6.41
7.09
0.43
7.52
3.30
10.82
10.29
21.11
0.76
21.87

Running
mean

0.68
3.55
2.51
2.71
4.22
2.43

Table 4. Table to show the percentage organic matter of the

soil in both areas

Soil organic matter content (%)

Graph 3. Box and whisker plot showing the difference in organic matter content between the two areas

11

Ellice Wakelin
This data, as shown in graph 3, shows a complete overlap in the two sets
of data, showing no significant difference in organic matter content, so I
can be confident that organic matter will not be affecting my results.

Sampling strategy?
I will use random stratified sampling because I am comparing two uniform
areas and I will need representative samples from each area.
I will use a 10m2 grid because I need a representative sample of the area,
and a smaller quadrat would not allow for that, and a larger quadrat would
not fit into the exclosure zone and it would also be unnecessarily large. I
will generate random numbers using my calculator to randomly select coordinates where I will take my measurement from; I will do this to remove
bias from my results to make them more reliable.

Sample size?
I took a running mean of the leaf lengths in each area to find out how
many samples I would need to take in my actual investigation. Also taking
into account that I will be using the t-test which requires a minimum of 15
measurements, so as long as the running mean evens out at less than 15
samples, then my sample size is dependent on the stats test.
Inside exclosure plot
Sample Leaf
Runnin
numbe length
g total
r
1
13.4
13.4
2
13.9
27.3
3
11.6
38.9
4
19.6
58.5
5
17.9
76.4
6
13.1
89.5
7
11.8
101.3
8
11.2
112.5
9
18.3
130.8
10
17.5
148.3

Runnin
g mean
13.4
13.65
12.97
14.63
15.28
14.92
14.47
14.06
14.53
14.83

Outside
Sample
numbe
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

exclosure plot
Leaf
Runnin
length
g total
12.1
14.5
11.0
12.4
9.8
10.3
7.6
8.1
9.3
10.2

12.1
26.6
37.6
50.0
59.8
70.1
77.7
85.8
95.1
106.3

Runnin
g mean
12.1
13.3
12.53
12.5
11.96
11.68
11.0
10.73
10.57
10.63

Table 5. Table to show a running mean of leaf lengths

The running mean shows that a sample size of 10 is sufficient to provide a

representative sample. However, at least 15 measurements need to be
taken for the t test, and also the stats tests become more reliable with
larger sample sizes so, in this investigation, at least 20 measurements will
be made from each area, and possibly more depending on the time
available.

Method
Equipment

2x 10m Tape measures

12

Ellice Wakelin

Metre ruler
Callipers
Infiltration meter ring
Hammer
Permanent marker
Bottles of water
Soil pin
12 x Soil sample pots
Trowel
Weighing scales
Oven at 110 degrees
12 x Crucibles

13

Ellice Wakelin

Figure 3. A map of the shingle ridge with the exclosure plots marked and the one used marked in red[7].

1. Arrive at the shingle ridge exclosure plots (grid reference: SX829440[1]).

There are 4 exclosure plots as shown in figure 3 below, and the third one
(from the Northern direction) was used in this investigation because P.
lanceolata was most abundant here which made it easier to take a large
sample of measurements to make data more accurate.

14

Ellice Wakelin
2. Set up a 10m x 10m quadrat in the exclosure zone and one outside the
exclosure zone. The one outside the exclosure zone should be about 1m
away from the fence, because trampling around the fence will be low.
3. As a quantitative measure of soil compaction, record the soil infiltration
rates inside and outside of the exclosure plot. To do this, generate two
random numbers between 0 and 10 using Ran# x 10 on your calculator,
the first number being your x co-ordinate and the second being the y co-

Figure 4. The infiltration ring being hammered into the ground. (Own photo)

ordinate. In this position, hammer the infiltration ring into the ground
about 5cm (figure 4), and using a permanent marker, mark where the
ground comes up to on the ring. Fill up the infiltration ring with water and
measure the time it takes for all the water to be soaked into the ground.
Repeat this again so that you get 15 measurements for inside and outside
the exclosure plots. Use the marker line to determine how far in you need
to hammer the ring each time, as the volume needs to remain constant
each time for accurate results. Then measure the inside diameter and
height (from the marked line) of the infiltration ring. Then use this to
calculate the volume of water in the ring each time with the equation:

d
2

V =

(with d being the diameter and h being the height.) Now divide

the volume by time taken for the water to drain, and this will give you the
infiltration rate. Do this for each result.

15

Ellice Wakelin
4. Measure soil moisture content. Using random co-ordinates again, take 6
soil samples from inside the exclosure plot and 6 from outside (6 samples
was decided from the running mean in the trial investigation). To do this,
use a trowel to dig up some soil from that point in the quadrat and fill up a
soil sample pot. Repeat for each co-ordinate. When you get back to the
centre, collect 12 crucibles and label the sample number on them with a
pencil. Weigh the crucible, pour in the soil and weigh the mass of the
crucible and wet mass, do this for each sample. Put all the samples into an
oven at about 110C for about 2 hours so that all the water is evaporated.
When the samples have cooled enough to be handled, re-weigh each
crucible and the dry mass of soil. You can then use the formula:

soil moisture ( )=

wd
100
wc

(where w is the wet mass of the soil in the crucible and d is the dry mass
in the crucible and c is the mass of the crucible.)
5. Measure the soil depth. Generate random co-ordinates with your
calculator and go to that point, push a pin from a point frame quadrat until
you feel a larger resistance, place your finger and thumb at the point on
the pin that is just above the ground and pull it out. Using a ruler, measure
the length of the pin from the end to your finger and thumb.
6. Next measure the leaf lengths of some P. lanceolata plants. Using
generated co-ordinates, locate a point in the quadrat inside the exclosure
plot. When you have located the plant, measure the length of the longest
leaf with some callipers. Repeat this to get 20 results inside and then

Figure 5. Measuring the leaf length with callipers. (Own photo)

repeat outside the exclosure zone to avoid only getting enough results in
one of the areas, and if there is time after this then repeat to get more
data.

16

Ellice Wakelin

Final data
Plant Gowth
Sample number

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Inside exclosure
plot
Leaf
Leaf
length
biomass
(mm)
(g)
118
0.13
139
0.16
105
0.11
152
0.18
86*1
0.08
126
0.14
109
0.12
114
0.12
119
0.13
112
0.12
147
0.17
151
0.18
111
0.12
149
0.18
155
0.19
180
0.22
122
0.14
124
0.14
146
0.17
143
0.17
131
0.15
137
0.16
125
0.14
148
0.17
150
0.18
132
0.15
146
0.17
151
0.18
141
0.16
176
0.22

Outside exclosure
plot
Leaf
Leaf
length
biomass
(mm)
(g)
129*2
0.15
91
0.09
94
0.10
82
0.08
65
0.05
86
0.08
71
0.06
103
0.11
79
0.07
74
0.07
64
0.05
53
0.03
96
0.10
85
0.08
109*3
0.12
103
0.11
101
0.11
92
0.09
89
0.09
90
0.09
87
0.08
91
0.09
59
0.04
67
0.06
93
0.09
62
0.05
57
0.04
61
0.05
102
0.11
88
0.09

Table 6. Table to show final data for leaf length and calculated
leaf biomass in the two areas.

*1 in very shingley patch

*2 under large vegetation
*3 amongst many other plants
Anomalies
17

Ellice Wakelin
Three of my measurements were noticeably different from the others and after I
made them I checked again to make sure I hadnt made an error in measuring
them. They were also in slightly different conditions to the rest of the samples.
However, in analysing the data I collected using box and whisker plots, I have
found that these results are not identified as anomalies because they are not
more than 1.5 times the interquartile range away from the first or third quartiles.
Therefore I have kept these results in my analysis to keep a fair and
representative sample of the two areas.

Leaf length (mm)

Graph 4. Box and whisker plot showing the difference in leaf lengths between inside and outside of the exclosure pl

Soil infiltration rates

Vol = 969.81 cm3
Inside exclosure
Time (s)
40.37
51.79
44.67

plot
Rate (cm3s-1)
24.02
18.73
21.71

Outside exclosure plot

Time (s)
Rate (cm3s-1)
124.20
7.81
61.39
15.80
90.14
10.76
18

Ellice Wakelin
29.40
61.69*
27.41
32.74
49.91
37.45
48.32
47.39
39.16
33.84
27.33
32.59
Mean

32.99
15.72
35.38
29.62
19.43
25.90
20.07
20.46
24.77
28.66
35.49
29.76
25.51

86.21
75.88
109.26
50.23*
98.34
87.29
72.17
102.84
99.79
115.64
89.74
78.03

11.25
12.78
8.88
19.31
9.86
11.11
13.44
9.43
9.72
8.39
10.81
12.43
10.89

Table 7. Table to show the final data for infiltration rates of

the soil in both areas

*measurement was taken on a very loose shingley

patch

Soil infiltration rate (cm3s-1)

Graph 5. Box and whisker plot to show the difference in soil infiltration rate between the two areas.

Graph 5 shows that there is a difference in soil infiltration rate between the two
areas, which therefore shows that the area outside the exclosure plot is actually
more trampled than inside the exclosure plot. Therefore the results of this
investigation will be valid.
Graph 5 also supports that the rate of 19.31 is an anomalous value therefore I
will not use it when calculating the mean infiltration rate.

Abiotic factors

19

Ellice Wakelin
Soil depth (cm)
Inside exclosure plot
13.4
16.7
13.6
16.1
13.6
15.3
14.8

Mean

Outside exclosure plot

5.7
8.6
5.1
6.9
9.3
7.8
7.2

Table 8. Table to show the final data for soil depth in the two
areas

Inside exclosure
Sampl Mass
e
of
numb crucib
er
le
1
19.53
2
20.51
3
19.42
4
18.62
5
19.32
6
17.51
mean

plot
Wet
mass

Dry
mass

%
moistu
re

34.98
36.21
27.00
35.59
30.79
28.65

34.63
35.97
26.59
33.90
30.60
28.35

2.27
1.53
5.41
9.96
1.66
2.69
3.92

Outside
Sampl
e
numb
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean

exclosure plot
Mass
Wet
of
mass
crucib
le
19.95 45.24
16.97 28.68
19.00 44.87
18.05 31.41
18.04 36.57
17.13 25.30

Dry
mass

%
moistu
re

44.83
28.21
44.80
31.08
36.22
25.02

1.62
4.01
0.27
2.47
1.89
3.42
2.28

Table 9. Table to show the final data for percentage moisture content in the soil in the
two areas

Modifications
As I was doing the investigation, I found that there wasnt always a P. lanceolata
plant right on my generated co-ordinate. Therefore, to continue to prevent bias,
if there was not a plant on that spot, then I would hold out a metre ruler and face
north, and turn clockwise until I located a plant. If there was not a P. lanceolata
plant within a 1 metre radius then I would generate some new co-ordinates and
repeat.
A second thing that I found when taking measurements was that it was not
usually immediately obvious which leaf on the plant was the longest, therefore I
would have to measure a few leaves to decide which one was the longest before
recording my measurement.

20

Ellice Wakelin

Analysis

21

Ellice Wakelin
Null hypothesis: There will be no significant difference in leaf length between
the trampled and non-trampled areas.

Figure 6. A screenshot of the T-test for my data

Where x1 = inside the exclosure plot
And y1 = outside the exclosure plot

The T test returned a result of 9.701 which is greater than the critical value of
2.009 at the 5% significance level. This means that the null hypothesis can be
rejected indicating that there is a significant difference in leaf length between a
trampled and a non-trampled area. The test statistic is also higher than the
critical value at the 1% significance level which shows that there is a highly
significant difference.
The soil was deeper inside the exclosure plot than outside; the mean soil depth
was 14.8cm inside the exclosure plot which is more than double the soil depth
outside the exclosure plot which was 7.2cm. The soil moisture is also higher in
the exclosure plot; there is a percentage difference of 72% between the two
areas.
I think that the reason for the significant difference in plant growth between the
trampled and non-trampled area is the soil compaction and not the soil depth or
organic matter content. This is because, a larger plant growth would result in
more organic material being put into the soil by a larger amount of decomposing
plants and this is also what results in the deeper soil, because there are more
decomposing organisms making up the soil. This, in turn would also result in
22

Ellice Wakelin
higher plant growth because there are more nutrients available to the plant,
promoting faster growth.
The process of succession is happening on the shingle ridge, so the vegetation
increases in size as you move further inland. Figure 7 shows the seres at certain
points up the ridge; these are different communities of plants. The species
closest to the shore are the ones that are very well adapted to the extreme
conditions of the shore, such as a lack of organic matter, nutrients and water. P.
lanceolata is part of the meadow community; therefore it is not quite as well
adapted to a lack of water and nutrients as the pioneer and maritime specialist

Figure 7. Photograph of the shingle ridge illustrating the change in vegetative communities as a result of successio

plants.

Trampling damages pastures by causing soil compaction and puddling where

air or waterfilled pore spaces are replaced in the soil, restricting oxygen to
plants roots. Trampling depresses fertilizer and water movement in the soil,
nitrogen fixation is reduced and root growth is impeded [8]. This explains how
trampling can lead to poorer growth in plants, because they have less oxygen,
less nutrients and nitrogen fixation, less water and also, if root growth is
impeded then this further restricts the access that the plant has to water and
nutrients. This is a problem for the P. lanceolata on the shingle ridge as there is a
large amount of competition between plants and as there is already a lack of
nutrients, good root growth is necessary to outcompete other plants and survive.
Compaction of the soil reduces pore size and therefore reduces air infiltration;
this prevents the roots from getting enough oxygen for respiration. Beneficial soil
organisms also dont get enough oxygen and they die, preventing the plant from
getting enough nutrients from the soil [8]. This will stunt growth, resulting in
smaller plants.

23

Ellice Wakelin

Evaluation
One limitation of this experiment is that it was only conducted in one area. This
means that, firstly there is only one set of data, and the hypothesis would be a
lot better supported if this result was shown to be repeatable in other areas.
Secondly it means that the investigation has a limited scope which may affect
the reliability of the conclusion. To improve this, some additional investigations
should take place to prove that the result is repeatable.
Another limitation is that the method used for measuring compactness was not
as accurate as it could have been, because although I tried to keep the
infiltration ring in the exact same depth each time to make sure the same
volume of water was used each time, it wasnt the best method to use. A better
method would have been to use a smaller bottle of a known volume (less than
that of the capacity of the ring), fill that up completely with water and pour it into
the ring and time it.
One more limitation of this experiment is that I was not able to measure biomass
of entire plants for practical and ethical reasons. This was a problem because a
lot of the plant growth is in the roots, which I was unable to measure. If this
investigation were to be made more accurate, it would be much more accurate
to grow the plants in these conditions for a certain amount of time and then to
measure the whole plant biomasses and compare them. This would give much
more accurate data because it is taking into account the whole plant and there
are very small degrees of error in weighing when you have very precise scales.

Conclusion
The results of this investigation support the hypothesis that the leaf lengths of P.
lanceolata will be significantly longer in the exclosure plots with very minimal
trampling than in the heavily trampled area. Therefore the results also support
the theory that trampling has an effect on the growth of P. lanceolata.
I think my results are fairly reliable because I researched how P. lanceolata would
be affected by some of the other abiotic factors, and the ones I thought could
also affect the growth were monitored and accounted for. Although the
limitations discussed in the evaluation may affect the reliability of my results.
However, I am confident in my conclusion because the statistical test showed a
very significant difference supporting the hypothesis and there are biological
principles that can support my conclusion, increasing my confidence in it.

Bibliography
[1] Shingle Ridge, working information card - Field Studies council:
http://www.field-studiescouncil.org/media/727108/shingle_ridge_working_information_card.pdf [Accessed
15.10.2014]

24

Ellice Wakelin
[2] Shingle Ridge Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve:
http://www.slnnr.org.uk/wildlife/habitats-conservation/shingle-ridge.aspx
[Accessed 15.10.2014]
[3] The effects of trampling Field Studies Council: http://www.field-studiescouncil.org/urbaneco/urbaneco/grassland/trampling.htm [Accessed 6.10.2014]
[4] Ribwort Plantain The Wildlife Trusts:
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/species/ribwort-plantain [Accessed 15.10.2014]
[5] Plantago lanceolata Plant Identification, West Highland Flora (Farmer, C):
http://www.plant-identification.co.uk/skye/plantaginaceae/plantagolanceolata.htm [Accessed 12.11.2014]
[6] Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) a potential pasture species New Zealand
Grassland Asociation 58; Stewart, A (1996); Christchurch
[7] Pasture Improvement: Trampling Effects Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub19/3trampfx.htm#table34
[Accessed 21.10.2014]
[8] How Soil Compaction Affects the Growth of Plants SF Gate (Waterworth, K):
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/soil-compaction-affects-growth-plants-40867.html
[Accessed 12.11.2014]

The sources 1 and 3 from the Field Studies Council and source 2 from Slapton Ley
National Nature Reserve were chosen for their reliability because they are written
by the organisations that run the Slapton Ley centre therefore they will be able
to provide reliable and accurate data, and they are also an educational
organisation so their information should be unbiased and purely factual.
Source 4 by The Wildlife Trusts provided a brief description of the appearance of
P. lanceolata. I believe that they provide reliable information because they are a
charity that works to protect wildlife so they are experienced in studying these
organisms and would be able to provide a reliable description of the plant.
Source 5 from the plant identification website provided some good pictures of P.
lanceolata. It does not provide much information except a very brief description
of the plant, however I consider it to provide accurate pictures, and they are all
referenced and copyrighted with a date and name.
The report by A. Stewart (source 6) provided a reliable source as it is published in
Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 58 and these reports are
peer reviewed which shows that it must be very reliable because other credible
scientists have checked the principles and agree with them because it was
published. The organisation New Zealand Grassland Association also hold
annual conferences in New Zealand where professionals will discuss many
agricultural topics which shows great credibility in the wider community as these
publications come from a very professional and scientific organisation.

25

Ellice Wakelin
Source 7 from Ontario Management of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs
(OMAFRA) should be reliable because it is a government organisation and they
are providing factual information about how soil compaction can affect crop
growth to inform and help farmers in their community. Therefore it will be
credible because the government will be able to get information and data from
leading scientists and they are providing information to help improve their
economy, therefore it is in their interest for their information to be accurate.
The article from SF Gate (source 8) about how soil compaction affects the growth
of plants provided useful information on the effects of soil compactness. I think
this source is reliable because it is a well know news site, and this article was in
the home section and was based on gardening. Although the author is not a
credible scientist, the news site would want to give reliable information in order
to keep their audience; therefore I think the author would have done a significant
amount of research so that they knew the information they were writing was
accurate.

26