JADE Student Edition 2019 JADE JSLUG 2019 | Page 96

Method The data found in figure 5 was tested for normality using the Anderson darling test for normality which gave a P value of below 0.005, meaning that data is not normally distributed. Because of this, the non-parametric test Mann Whitney was used to find a significant difference in species richness between T. baccata and R. ponticum. From this a P value of 0.108 was achieved, meaning that no significant difference was found between the species richness’ between T. baccata shrub and R. ponticum shrub. This is generally not supported by previous research, although the impact that invasive species may have has been disputed. Vilà at al. (2015) found that plots containing non-native plants had lower native plant and lower animal species richness within them, compared to paired uninvaded control plots. Our research suggests that shrub species has little impact on the number of species observed, native or not. Although it should be noted that time of year may have had some impacts on species richness observed, with species such as hedgehogs being in hibernation for the majority of the study period (RSPCA, 2019). The data found in figure 6 was tested for normality using the Anderson darling test which gave a P value of below 0.005, meaning that data is not normally distributed. Because of this the non- parametric Mann Whitney test was used for further analysis. This gave a P value of below 0.000 which indicates that there is a significant difference in the activity between the two shrubs. H02 can be rejected as a result of this analysis, meaning that activity was different between the native and non-native species. In fact, based on the data in figure 6, activity was generally higher in R. ponicum than T. baccata, potentially supporting the idea that R. ponticum could be used as a conservation tool. The Anderson-Darling test for normality was conducted on the mouse print data in figure 7 which, once again, found that the data was not normally distributed. Because of this the non-parametric test Man Whitney was used to determine if significant 96  data was collected. In this instance, a P value of 0.042 was found. This shows a significant difference between the data found in R. ponticum and T. baccata meaning that we also reject H03. This once again suggests that activity was significantly higher in R. ponticum, meaning R. ponticum has the potential to be a conservation tool for these small mammals. A previous study by Malo et al. (2013) had similar findings, that R. ponticum allowed for higher mice abundances than open woodland areas. The paper suggests several reasons for this finding, including increase in protection from aerial predation which is more difficult in shrub areas (Southern and Lowe, 1968) as well as improved foraging efficiency as found by Fedriani and Manzaneda (2005). An initial reaction to increased populations around R. ponticum would be that it is a good thing, not only would this mean that R. ponticum could be used for the conservation of these populations, but increased mice populations would provide more prey for land dwelling predatory species that are at risk. With Mathews et al. (2018) suggesting that one in five mammals in the UK are at risk of extinction within the next decade, the potential use of well managed non-native species to improve the conservation of these species seems promising (Schlaepfer, Sax and Olden, 2011). However, the negative impacts of R. ponticum must be considered before new management plans are put in place. One key issue with suggesting such changes is the current outbreak of Phytopthora ramorum, a fungus like disease which is most commonly controlled by the complete removal of the plant and repeated herbicide applications to prevent regrowth and reinfection (Willoughby et al., 2015). How R. ponticum impacts the composition of woodland plant species also cannot be ignored, as R. ponticum causes serious forest degradation and reduced seed germination. Incorrect management can potentially amplify these effects. The increased mouse activity in these areas may also further affect seed germination, with the increased activity leading to increased foraging and feeding on seeds produced.