Here is a draft lab report on calculating the Simpsons diversity index across terrestrial and aquatic

environments on a college campus:

Introduction

The Simpsons diversity index (SDI) is a measure of diversity which takes into account both richness and
evenness of species present in a habitat (1). It was first proposed by Edward H. Simpson in 1949 as a
quantitative way to measure biodiversity (2). The SDI calculates the probability that two individuals
randomly selected from a sample will belong to the same species (or some category other than species)
(3). The index represents the likelihood that the two individuals are different species, so a greater value
indicates more diversity.

The SDI formula Is:

D=1-∑(n/N)2

Where:

D = Simpson’s diversity index

N = the total number of organisms of a particular species

N = the total number of organisms of all species

The SDI value ranges between 0 and 1, with 1 representing high diversity and 0 representing low
diversity. An SDI of 1 would indicate perfect even distribution of species. A habitat dominated by one
species would have an SDI close to 0.

To explore species diversity across campus, our group surveyed birds and insects in terrestrial and
aquatic environments. We calculated SDI values to quantify and compare the diversities. We expected
aquatic species diversity may differ from terrestrial due to different environmental pressures and
resources available in water versus land habitats.

Methods
Our group physically explored the college campus to identify species of birds and insects across
terrestrial and aquatic environments. Terrestrial habitats examined included grassy quads, forested
areas, and gardens. Aquatic habitats included a campus pond, fountain, and marsh.

When an organism was spotted, we identified it to species level where possible. Abundance counts were
made by tally for each identified species. Care was taken not to double count any individuals. After
compiling species lists and abundances, SDI values were calculated for the terrestrial and aquatic habitat
categories using the above equation.

Results

Table 1 shows the species lists and abundance counts compiled across campus habitats. From these
data, the following SDI values were obtained:

Terrestrial SDI: 0.824

Aquatic SDI: 0.689

The terrestrial environment thus showed higher species diversity than the aquatic campus habitats.

Discussion

Our terrestrial SDI value of 0.824 indicates reasonably high diversity across the assortment of land
habitats explored. Since an SDI maxes out at 1, this shows the terrestrial birds and insects identified do
not solely comprise one or two dominant species. Multiple species were cataloged with somewhat even
distributions.

In contrast, the aquatic SDI of 0.689 suggests more unevenness and lower diversity by comparison. The
pond, fountain, and marsh areas contained fewer species that were more skewed in abundances. This
aligns with known ecological principles governing the differences between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. Limiting resources, predation pressures, competition, and water conditions may constrain
aquatic diversity development (4).

The Simpson's Index provided a simple quantitative method for contrasting species diversities across
habitat types. Further studies could expand this to quantify additional ecosystems both naturally
occurring and human influenced. Examining temporal shifts in the SDI may also yield insights related to
conservation, invasion, succession, restoration, climate change, and other dynamics playing out on local
and global scales.
References

1. Morris EK, Caruso T, Buscot F, et al. Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological
applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecology and Evolution.
2014;4(18):3514-3524.

2. Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949;163(4148):688.

3. Hill M. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology. 1973 Jul
1:427-32.

4. Akin S, Winemiller KO. Body size and trophic position in a temperate estuarine food web. Acta
Oecologica. 2008 Mar 1;33(2):196-205.