Introduction

A field study of the dry-sclerophyll forest and sub-tropical forest within DAguilar National Park
was recently undertaken to compare and contrast the abiotic factors and biotic communities
within each habitat. The abiotic factors which were measured were soil moisture, sunlight,
humidity and temperature.
Dry sclerophyll forests are typically nutrient deficient, with a lack of soil moisture present in
the environment (NSW,GOV 2012). They generally lack species diversity and abundance
because the ecosystem cannot support a diverse range of flora and fauna. Only certain
plants can cope in these conditions (NSW GOV, 2012).
On the other hand sub-tropical forests generally support a larger diversity and abundance of
species largely due to the more nutrient dense environment with greater soil moisture levels
present (BGS, 2013). The abiotic factors and biotic communities of flora and fauna in this
experiment were surveyed through belt transects along a gradient of elevation.

(Picture 1, DAguilar National Park Dry-Sclerophyll

Forest)

(Picture 2, DAguilar National Park, Sub-tropical

Forest)

Aim
To investigate the similarities and differences between a dry sclerophyll and sub-tropical forest in
relation to which abiotic factor has the greatest influence on the biotic communities of each habitat. It
is predicted that the presence of certain abiotic factors will determine the similarities and differences
between the biotic communities in both forests.

Hypothesis
It is hypothesised that a relationship exists between soil moisture content and species
diversity and abundance. Soil moisture plays a crucial role in the transfer of nutrients through
an ecosystem, as well as in the process of photosynthesis (IPCC, 1995). It is expected that

there will be higher levels of soil moisture in the subtropical forest than in the dry sclerophyll
forest resulting in greater flora and fauna species diversity and abundance.

Materials

4 x red marker cones

1 x 1m ruler
1 x Soil moisture meter
1 x Weather station
1x camera
1 x Hand spade
8 x Sample containers

Method

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Dependant variable : Soil moisture

Independent variable : Species diversity / abundance
Time of day, the season and the strength of the wind were noted down.
Temperature, humidity and air pressure were measured using a weather station
The quadrat was marked out by four cones with dimensions of 0.5m x 0.5m
Observations of the different species of flora and fauna were noted.
Observations of any distinct influential abiotic factors within the quadrat were noted.
Pictures of the quadrat from a birds eye view were taken
Pictures of any plant species or invertebrates species within the vicinity of the quadrat
were taken
8. Soil samples were taken
9. Elevation of the ground within the quadrat was measured.
10.Steps 4-10 were repeated 8 times, with each quadrats placed 1-2 metre away from the
other.
11.The distance from quadrat 1 to quadrat 8 (15m) was taken.
12.In the lab, analysis of data was done through the use of averages, standard deviation
(onenote,2014), range and proportion
13.A scale of 10% : 1 plant was used for graphs

Justification of method:
Step 2 and 3 were done because these general abiotic factors constantly influence the
environments biotic communities. A quadrat belt transect was used because it provided the
opportunity to study along a gradient. Results from this could be utilised to support the
hypothesis. A quadrat, transect belt allows for a more representative sample to be taken as
certain abiotic factors are weaker or greater depending on the elevation of the ground (IPCC,
1995). Because of time constraints 0.5mx0.5m dimensions were chosen. Also, pictures and
sketches of the quadrat were done from a birds-eye view to allow for a rough examination of
the abundance of flora. Photographs helped identify actual names of the plants. Soil samples
were taken to measure soil moisture as research has established that it usually has the
greatest influence on a habitats biotic communities. To allow graphing of flora and fauna
together, a scale of 10% ground cover = 1 plant was used. Observation in the habitats itself
influenced this decision. The general case, as per observation, established that if a species
has 10% ground cover there is usually 1 plant accounting for it.

Results (Raw Data + Data analysis)

Tables 1
Abiotic factors

Q1

Sub-tropical forest (abiotic factors)

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Range

Soil moisture (%)

Temperature
(0C)
Sun Light (%)
Humidity (%)

13
22

15
23

12
23

12
21

17
23

16
21

19
22

20
21

12-19
21-23

14
22

Standar
d
Deviatio
n
5.5
0.9

5
74

15
76

20
80

10
72

10
78

15
73

20
75

10
72

5-20
72-80

13
75

5.2
2.9

Average

Table 2
Biotic factors
(Fauna)

Q
1

Q
2

Q
3

Spider
1 1
(Unidentified)
Leech
0 0
(Hirudinea)
Ants
3 3
(Formicidae)
Caterpillar
1 1
(Lycaenidae)
Millipede
1 0
(Julidae)
Flora % Ground cover
plants)**
Soft Corkwood 2 0
(Caldcluvia)
0
Palm Tree
0 0
(Cordyline)
Vine
1 3
(Apocynaceae) 0 0
Lawyer vine
2 1
(unidentified)
0 0
Prickly tree
0 0
Fern (v)
Fungi
0 0
Moss
(Bryophyta)
Yellow flower

Broad leaf
plant (Arkania
Lucens)
Small lily
plants

Sub-tropical forest (Abundance of biotic factors)

Q Q Q Q Q Ran
Average(roun SD
ded)
4 5 6 7 8 ge

Proportion

(Flora and
fauna done
separately)

1-3

0.9

16.67%

0-3

8.33%

3-9

2.6

50%

1-2

0.5

16.67%

0-1

0.5

8.33%

**for graphs, a scale of 10%:1plant will be used (eg. 20% = 2

4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

2
0
0

2
0
0

1
0

1
0

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0

3
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0

2
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
0

0-40

18

4
0
1
0
5

3
0
1
0
2
0
5

21.9%

15

15.
8
16

0-40
1030
0-20

16

7.4

19.5%

5.8

10.9%

0-10

3.7

2.4%

0-10

3.7

3.6%

1
0
0

2
0
5

2
0
5

2
0
5

0-20

13

15.9%

0-10

10.
4
3.7

1
0

0-10

4.6

3.6%

1
0

0-10

4.6

3.6%

18.3%

3.6%

Table 3
Factor

Q1

Q2

Q3

Sub-tropical forest (Diversity)

Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8

Range

Average

SD

Fauna
Flora

4
3

3
3

4
5

4
5

4
6

5
8

5
8

5
9

3-5
3-9

4.25
5.88

0.7
2.3

Tables 4
Dry-Sclerophyll forest (abiotic factors)
Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
Q8 Range

Abiotic factors

Q1

Q2

Averag
e

Soil moisture
(%)
Temperature
(0C)
Sun Light (%)
Humidity (%)

<1
0
24

<1
0
24

<1
0
25

<1
0
25

<1
0
25

<1
0
24

<1
0
24

<1
0
25

<10<10
24-25

<10

Standar
d
Deviati
on
0

25

0.5

90
78

100
78

80
80

90
79

90
79

90
78

100
80

90
79

80-100
78-80

92
79

6.4
0.8

Table 5
Biotic factors
(Fauna)

Q
1

Q
2

Dry Sclerophyll forest (Abundance of biotic factors)

Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Rang Average SD Proportion(Fl
ora and
(rounded
3
4
5
6
7
8
e

Ants
13 5
12 4
5
4
(Formicidae)
Caterpillars
1
0
0
1
0
1
(Nymphalidae)
Spiders
1
1
2
2
2
2
(Unidentified)
Flora % Ground cover **for graphs, a scale
plants)**
Eucalyptus tree 30 30 10 50 10 0
(Myrtaceae)
Dry Grass
60 30 30 30 40 80
(Sarga
leiocladum)
Tree Vines
0
0
0
10 0
0
Small
tree(Unidentifie
d)
Yellow flower
Thorned plant

Fauna done
separately)

10

12

4-13

72.7%

0-1

30

10

0-50

21

16

26%

10

70

10-80

43

23

53%

10

0-10

4.
6
5.
2

3.7%

9
5.
2

7.4%
4.9%

0.
9%
5
1
1
1-2
2
0.
18%
5
of 10%:1 plant will be used (eg. 20% = 2

10

10

10

0-10

0
0

0
10

5
0

0
0

1
10

20
0

20
0

0
10

0-20
0-10

6
4

4.9%

Table 6
Factor
Fauna
Flora

Q1
3
2

Q2
2
4

Dry sclerophyll forest (Diversity)

Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
3
2
3
2
3
4
5
2
3
4

Q3
2
3

Range
2-3
2-5

Average
2.5
3.38

Graphs (NOTE: For flora, a scale of 10% : 1 plant is used)

Pie charts (figures 1-4)

Fauna Abundance/ Diversity in the Subtropical Rainforest (Figure 1)

14%

5%

Spider

18%

Hirudinea
Formicidae
Lycaenidae

11%

Julidae

52%

Flora Abundance/Diversity in the Subtropical Rainforest (Figure 2)

4%
4%4% 21%
15%
4%
2%
10%

18%
19%

Caldcluvia

Cordyline

Apocynaceae

Lawyer Vine

Cyathea
leichhardtiana

Fungi

Bryophyta

Yellow Flower

Arkania Lucens Small Lily

SD
0.5
1.1

Abundance of Flora and Fauna in the Subtropical Rainforest (Figure 3)

Animals
Plants

44%
56%

Diversity of Flora and Fauna in the Sub-tropical Rainforest (Figure 4)

Plants

33%

Animals

67%

Pie Charts(figure 5-8)

Flora Abundance/ Diversity in the Sclerophyll Forest (Figure 5)

Myrtaceae
Sarga leiocladum

8% 5%
26%
5%
3%

Tree vines
(unidentified)
Small tree
(unidentified)
Yellow flowers
Thorned vines/plants
(unidentified)

53%

Fauna Abundance / Diversity in the Sclerophyll Forest (Figure 6)

15%

Formicidae

5%

Nymphalidae
Spiders (unidentified)

80%

Flora and Fauna Abundance in the Subtropical Rainforest (Figure 7)

Animals

41%

Plants

59%

Flora and Fauna Diversity in the Sclerophyll Forest (Figure 8)

Animals

40%
60%

Plants

Histograms

The Species Diversity in the Sub-tropical and Sclerophyll forests (Figure 9)

16
14
12
10

Diversity 8
6
4
2
0

Subtropical

Sclerophyll

The Fauna Species Diversity in the Sub-tropical and Sclerophyll forests (Figure 10)
6
5
4

Diversity 3
2
1
0

Subtropical

Sclerophyll

The Flora Species Diversity in the Sub-tropical and Sclerophyll forests (Figure 11)
12
10
8

Diversity 6
4
2
0

Subtropical

Sclerophyll

The Total Species Abundance in the Sub-tropical and Sclerophyll forests (Figure 12)
160
155
150

Sum of abundance in all quadrats 145

140
135
130

Subtropical

Sclerophyll

The Total Fauna Species Abundance in the Sub-tropical and Sclerophyll forests (Figure 13)
89
88
87
86
85

Sum of abundance in all quadrats 84

83
82
81
80

Subtropical

Sclerophyll

The Total Flora Species Abundance in the Sub-tropical and Sclerophyll forests (Figure 14)
80
70
60
50

sum of abundance in all quadrats 40

30
20
10
0

Subtropical

Sclerophyll

Bi-variant Plots
The Relationship Between Soil Moisture and Species Diverstiy In the Subtropical Rainforest (Figure 15)
25
20
f(x) = 0.82x + 7.6
R = 0.8

15

Soil Moisture (%)

10
5
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

Diversity

The Relationship Between Soil Moisture and Species Abundance in the Subtropical Rainforest (Figure 16)
25
20
15

Soil moisture (%)

f(x) = 0.36x + 8.62

R = 0.8

10
5
0
10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Abundance

24

26

28

30

Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the similarities and differences between a dry sclerophyll and sub-tropical
forest to determine which abiotic factor has a distinct influence on the biotic communities of each habitat. In this
experiment several abiotic factors were measured, however it was concluded immediately that the only abiotic factor
which was clearly different across the two environments, as per research and data analysis, was soil moisture. So this
was the only abiotic factor that was graphed in relation to the biotic communities.
The average soil moisture in the sub-tropical forest was 14% (+ or 5.5%) while the dry-sclerophyll forest had <less
than 10% (soil moisture). A more accurate reading for the dry sclerophyll forest could not be achieved because the
equipment could not measure below 10%. However it was noted, that the soil in the sclerophyll forest was very dry to
the touch and loose.
Pie-charts were an effective means of illustrating the relative proportions of species in terms of their abundance and
diversity. A similarity between the two habitats can be seen in figures 4 and 8, which show that in both places flora
species diversity takes up a larger proportion of the total species diversity. Another similarity observed , is in figure 1
and 6 which show that in both habitats 1 species (Formicidae) generally dominates (over 50% of total abundance) the
habitats. This is more obvious in figure 6, and surprisingly in figure 1 despite the greater diversity. The differences
in proportions can be seen in figures 2 and 5, where in the sclerophyll forest the abundance of plant species is largely
dominated by the Sarga Leiocladum, while in the sub-tropical forest the greater proportion of flora is spread across 5
species (Caldcluvia, Cordyline, Apocynaceae, Lawyer Vine and Cyathea leichhardtiana).
The histograms from figure 9 to 14 compare the abundance and diversity of flora and fauna between the two
environments. They clearly reveal that the subtropical rain forest, in general, supported a greater abundance and
diversity of species in comparison to the dry-sclerophyll forest, as expected. The total flora abundance and species
diversity between the two forests was notably different as can be seen in figure 11 and 14. This indicated that the
subtropical habitat had ample soil moisture to support a variety of flora species. A similar study done by Mark.B
Drew (2001)found that changes in soil moisture content between environments influence the plant biomass
aboveground. Zhanfeng Liu (2007), also doing a similar experiment concluded that in comparison to wet forests and
rainforests, the soil moisture levels of arid and semi arid areas were an important factor limiting plant biodiversity
(Zhanfeng liu, 2007). An explanation for this relationship is provided by the IPCC (2012), which concluded that soil
moisture is a key ingredient for photosynthesis and naturally in most cases plants will thrive in environments with
greater levels of it. Also graphs 10 and 13 demonstrate that the subtropical forest is a more attractive/suitable
environment for fauna than the dry-sclerophyll forest. This can be explained through the fact that plant density and
diversity directly affects animal density and diversity in most given habitats (Abrahamson,1989). Fauna diversity and
abundance is reliant on food quantity and quality. Therefore the more plants that fulfill an animals requirements the
more animals there can be. Therefore, soil moisture determines plant diversity and abundance, which in turn
determines fauna diversity and abundance that can be supported in the ecosystem.
The hypothesis was further supported through the bi-variant plot showing the relationship between soil moisture and
total species diversity and abundance over a gradient in the sub tropical forest. A bi-variant plot could not be done for
the dry sclerophyll forest since all soil moisture readings only showed <10%. As can be seen, figure 15 has an obvious
upward trend, which leads to the statement that as soil moisture increased, total species abundance proportionally
increased. The R-squared value of 0.8 means that the data points are quite close to the line and therefore the
relationship is quite strong. The very same can be said for figure 16 where there is an upward trend, therefore as soil
moisture increases, total species diversity proportionally increases. The R-squared value in this graph is at roughly 0.8
as well, suggesting that the relationship between the two variables is quite strong. These graphs clearly demonstrate
the effect that soil moisture over a gradient has on flora and fauna in the same environment. This would also logically
support the fact that differences in soil moisture levels in two environments is the cause for differences in biotic
diversity and abundance.
The major flaws in the data can be seen in table 2 and table 5, particularly in the flora section. The standard deviation
in that table is too high and means that the average for the flora in particular will not be reliable. Specific flora and
fauna in table 2, which should be taken into account for such large variation, are the Hirudinea, Caldcluvia,
Cordyline, Lawyer Vine, Cyathea leichhardtiana, Fungi, Bryophyta, Yellow flower, Arkania Lucens and Small lily
plant. Other specific flora and fauna in table 5 which need to be recognised as having high variation are the
Myrtaceae, Tree vines, Smaller trees (unidentified), yellow flower (unidentified), thorned plant (unidentified).
Therefore graphs which may be unreliable are figure 2, figure 5, figure 12, figure 14 and figure 16. In order to
minimise the standard deviation in the calculations, more measurements must be taken. This is because a more
representative and accurate sample will be acquired, therefore ensuring variation is minimal. When doing multiple
measurements it would be best to go at 3 different times of day (morning, afternoon and night) and maybe go back in
different seasons. It is also key that a better soil moisture meter, which can measure larger ranges of soil moisture
content, is required, for more accurate results. Another flaw which has affected the results is the scale that was used

for flora abundance. Since flora was measured as a percentage of ground cover there was no way to combine the data
of flora abundance and fauna abundance. However a scale of 10% : 1 plant was used, this however is not very reliable
and accurate. This will have affected the graphs in figure 3, figure 7, figure 12, figure 16 and figure 14 because
unreliable measurements will have been graphed. To solve this problem it is best to use a ranking system to assess the
abundance of plants in a quadrat and then graph flora separately to fauna, instead of together in one graph.

Conclusion: Evidence has been found which supports the hypothesis that the soil moisture levels will be the
defining factor that distinguish the two forests biotic communities. There were clear
differences in soil moisture levels between the two habitats and there were also clear
differences in biotic communities. A relatively strong relationship was established between
soil moisture over a gradient and the abundance and diversity of flora and fauna, in the subtropical forest. This relationship provides strong evidence on the influence, not only on a large
scale (two different habitats), but also on a smaller scale (between quadrats in the same
habitat). However to make this relationship more representative and accurate, the standard
deviation in the data must be minimalized. To accomplish this, more measurements at
different times of day throughout the year need to be taken so as to increase the data.

References
ACGS Science Department. (2014). Field Studies and Data Analysis. In A. S. Department,
Science 2 textbook (pp. 9-10). Brisbane: ACGS.
BioGeoScience. (2013). Effects of soil temperature and moisture on methane uptake on three
different ecosystems. Germany: BioGeoScience.
IPCC. (1985-1990). Effect on an Ecosystem. IPCC.

New South Wales Government. (2012-2014). Dry-Sclerophyll Forest information. Retrieved

from Environment.NSW.GOV:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/VegFormation.aspx?
formationName=Dry+sclerophyll+forests+(shrub/grass+sub-formation)

Appendix (sketches attached)