Looking back on the project now that it’s done, I definitely see areas for improvement, especially in terms of the efficiency of processing all the data I collected. Being a beginner using statistical software tools I spent way too much time frustrated in excel and attempting to use RStudio. I reformatted the excel sheet countless times trying to compute the analysis I needed. Looking back I should have either reached out for help earlier, or just simplified my approach!
The survey field work was enjoyable. I feel that there were so many variables at each site that added almost an overwhelming sense of complexity. There were so many angles and layers to look at, and the more I thought about it, the more complicated it became in my mind. First of all, I realized that I needed more background data to provide context for the study in terms of cavity using wildlife presence and potential species in the study area. Then I figured it was important to understand BEC zone/subzone variant conditions (climax conditions) to compare the younger seral sites to (early and mid) that were apparently managed. Lastly, I felt that I needed to provide general forest composition/species % cover, so I returned to the site in May and collected more data!
As I went, there just seemed to be so many details that needed to be added and explained. Comparing the design to some of the papers I reviewed made my approach seem inadequate to make any conclusions (ie. they climbed individual trees to see inside and monitored activities of the inhabitants to confirm cavities as active).
I think this is a process of wading through information and data that gets easier over time. This was certainly a learning experience for me, and really got me curious about how researchers approach their problems and stay focused when there is so much going on in nature.