Table of Contents
DISCUSSION
The previous research in lab 1 aimed at determining the factors affecting the distribution of the three species of salt marshes namely Sarcocornia Pacifica (Sp), Jaumea carnosa (Jc), and Cuscuta salina (Cs, dodder). From the findings of the research, it was clear that their distribution is affected significantly by their distance from the channel. In the research, I was however limited by the distance I could cover. I had to sample the regions I was sure could reach. This left a question hanging. That is what if there was another factor other than the ones intended that affected the results of lab 1.
The research in lab 2 was still on the same topic as that of lab 1. The main difference is that I did not have to sample places within my reach. The results for this lab 2 are got from a survey conducted by the Unmanned Arial Vehicle which managed to reach the areas I could not in lab 1 research. The research was a confirmatory test for the previous research involving the use of modern technology. Taking a look at the literature review, the use of this technology has been successful in other circumstances in this same field. Since the UAV traveled across the whole area selected for the survey, the data collected is a representation of the whole are hence is suitable for generalization purposes. The previous research for lab 1 showed that there was a great difference in the distribution of the species named above in relation to the distance from the channel. The findings for lab 2 are not any different. It is clear that the distance from the channel significantly affects the distribution of the species and this happens in a different manner based on the species. This is the same result that I got in lab 1 research. The findings from the images taken by the UAV is similar to the findings that I found when I physically went to the field.
In an attempt to find out the relationship between brown cloud and atmospheric heating rate, UAV was used (Ramanathan et al., 2007). The high parts of the atmosphere were out of reach for a man due to considerable effect. They hence sent the drone, and it successfully collected ample data that enable them to determine the correlation between the cloud and atmospheric heating. So in this case again the technology helped them confirm they suspicion just as it was for me. In the study of biodiversity, large quantities of data are often required. This technology has been found to be the cheapest and safest way to collect such data this is according (Getzin et al., 2012).
CONCLUSION
From the findings in my research, I can agree that this is a safe and reliable means for conducting ecological research. The contents of the literature reviewed also confirms this. It does not matter the kind of research. The UAVs come in different sizes and different designs (Vas et al., 2015). One simply needs to choose the one to use based on the type and area of the study.
- Getzin, Stephan, Kerstin Wiegand, and Ingo Schöning. “Assessing biodiversity in forests using
- very high‐resolution images and unmanned aerial vehicles.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3.2 (2012): 397-404.
- Ramanathan, Veerabhadran, et al. “Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar
- absorption.” Nature 448.7153 (2007): 575-578.
- Vas, Elisabeth, et al. “Approaching birds with drones: first experiments and ethical guidelines.”
- Biology letters 11.2 (2015): 20140754.