Repeated transect counts, five paired sites

Field study poster

A field study poster has to show when and where every number was collected, because season and site are the confounders a reviewer checks first. This A0 landscape example runs its four sampling visits as a dated timeline across the top of the board, so the heatwave at visit three explains the dip in the counts before anyone asks.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Landscape, printed at 1189 by 841 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

Restored roadside verges carry three times the pollinator visits of mown verges by late summer

T. Nakamura ¹, P. Adeyemi ¹, K. Lindqvist ²

1 Department of Ecology, Halbrook University · 2 Halbrook Shire Council

Sep

Visit 1

First flowering, 10 verges x 2 transects

Nov

Visit 2

Peak flowering at 4 of 5 sites

Jan

Visit 3

Heatwave week, morning counts

Mar

Visit 4

Late summer seed set, final count

ABSTRACT

Road verges are the largest strip of public land most shires manage, and restoring them to native vegetation is often justified by pollinators nobody then counts. We counted. Over one season we made 80 transect walks across five restored roadside verges and their paired mown verges, four visits from spring to late summer, and recorded 2,184 pollinator visits to flowers.

METHODS

Sites. Five restored verges (Elm Rd, Quarry Ln, Mill Track, Ridge Rd, Ferry Rd), each paired with a mown verge 200 m away on the same road.

Transects. Two 50 m transects per verge per visit, walked in 10 minutes each; every insect visiting an open flower was counted once.

Timing. Four visits, September to March, always between 8 and 11 in the morning; 80 walks in total.

Weather. Temperature and wind logged on every walk. Visit 3 fell in a heatwave week and is flagged in every figure that uses it.

Analysis. Negative binomial model of visits per walk, site as a random effect, treatment and visit as fixed effects.

REFERENCES

1.Nakamura T, Adeyemi P. Transect methods for pollinator monitoring on linear reserves. Journal of Applied Field Ecology 2024;31(4):402-417.

2.Lindqvist K, Farrow J. Roadside restoration and invertebrate abundance: a five year council program. Restoration Notes 2025;12(1):55-70.

3.Adeyemi P, Nakamura T. Count models for paired ecological designs with few sites. Methods in Ecology Briefs 2023;8(2):119-133.

Mown

Restored

Figure 1. Season total pollinator visits by site: restored verge against its paired mown verge. Restored bars sum to 1,638, mown to 546.

Source: Trial dataset, 2026.

RESULTS

By visit, restored verges recorded 312, 486, 342 and 498 visits and the mown pairs 118, 162, 98 and 168, so both treatments peaked at visit 2, dipped at visit 3 and recovered by visit 4. The dip lines up with the heatwave flagged on the timeline above: counts fell by roughly a third on both treatments in the same week, which is what a weather effect looks like and what a treatment effect does not. The adjusted rate ratio was 2.9 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.6). The raw ratio ran from 2.6 at visit 1 to 3.0 at visit 4, so the advantage of restoration grew slightly as the season aged, consistent with restored verges still carrying open flowers after the mown pairs had been cut. Site totals tell the same story one pair at a time: every restored verge outdrew its mown pair, from Ridge Rd at 294 against 98 to Elm Rd at 366 against 122, and no pair came close to parity. Hoverflies and native bees made up most visits on both treatments; honeybees were a larger share on mown verges, where the few remaining flowers were clover. Nothing here required rare skills or equipment: a tape, a timer and 80 morning walks produced every number on this board, and the same five pairs can be rewalked next season by whoever holds the clipboard. The counts behind Figure 1 and the by visit totals in this section describe the same 2,184 visits, so the two breakdowns can be checked against each other at the stand.

3.0x

visits on restored verges by late summer

1,638 against 546 visits over 80 walks; rate ratio 2.9 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.6)

DISCUSSION

The design controls what it can and names what it cannot. Pairing each restored verge with a mown verge 200 m along the same road holds soil, traffic and local weather roughly constant within a pair, and the heatwave dip appearing on both treatments at once is the pairing doing its job. What the pairing does not control is verge width, which differed by up to 1.2 m within pairs, and wider verges carry more flowers regardless of treatment. Width was recorded and the three widest verges were not the three highest counters, but with five pairs we cannot adjust our way out of the confound, only report it. Season is the other honest caveat. One season is one draw from a variable climate, and the visit 3 heatwave shows how strongly a single week can move counts. The ratio was stable even when the level was not, which is encouraging, but a recommendation to change mowing policy across the shire should rest on more than one spring. Two further seasons are funded and the same 80 walks will be repeated in each. The practical question for the council is cost, and it points the same way as the ecology. Restored verges were cut once at the end of the season against five cuts for the mown pairs, so the treatment that carried three times the pollinator visits also needed less machine time. If the ratio survives two more seasons, the case for restoring the remaining verges is made on both grounds at once.

Restored verges 1,638 visits, mown verges 546

The ratio held across all five site pairs

The heatwave visit cut counts in both arms

Two more seasons before any recommendation

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and authors: The title states the finding with its magnitude: restored verges carry three times the pollinator visits of mown verges by late summer. The council officer who manages the verges is a co-author with her own affiliation, which is where applied field work earns its credibility.
The sampling timeline: Four dated points run across the top: September first flowering, November peak, January heatwave with counts held to mornings, March seed set. Each point carries a month, a visit name and one line of what happened, so the reader knows the sampling calendar before reading any count.
Abstract: The abstract states the problem, restored verges justified by pollinators nobody counts, and the design: five restored verges against five paired mown verges, four visits from spring to late summer, and 2,184 pollinator visits recorded. It gives the effort as 80 walks, which the methods reproduce: ten verges with two transects each over four visits is 10 x 2 x 4 = 80.
Methods as a labelled protocol: Five labelled entries cover sites, transects, timing, weather and analysis. The five site names are listed with their mown pairs 200 metres away, the 50 metre transect and 10 minute walk are stated, and the visit three heatwave is flagged here as well as on the timeline.
Visits by site (Figure 1): The bar chart pairs each restored verge with its mown partner across the season: 366 against 122 at Elm Road down to 294 against 98 at Ridge Road. The restored bars sum to 1,638 and the mown bars to 546, the totals the stat block carries, and together they make the 2,184 visits in the abstract.
The ratio: The stat block prints 3.0x, the late summer ratio of visits on restored against mown verges, with the season totals and the modelled rate ratio of 2.9 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.6) underneath. The raw ratio and the adjusted one sit together so neither is mistaken for the other.
Results by visit: The results text gives the by visit totals: 312, 486, 342 and 498 restored against 118, 162, 98 and 168 mown. Both treatments dip at visit three, in the heatwave week, and the dip appearing on both sides at once is presented as evidence the pairing is doing its job.
Discussion, conclusion points and references: The discussion names what the pairing cannot control, verge width differing by up to 1.2 metres, and holds the recommendation until two more funded seasons finish. The three references are invented for this fictional study, because the reference block is required on this layout; on your board, replace them with your sources.
How to adapt this board: Put your own visits into the four timeline points with real dates, one line each; if you sampled more often, merge visits rather than shrinking the type. Sites go in the protocol as a named list, counts go in the chart with one bar per site, and any weather event gets flagged twice, on the timeline and in methods.

What makes this board work

Time is the header

The four dated timeline points run across the top of the board, so the January heatwave at visit three explains the dip in both arms of the chart before the reader has to ask.

The sums are visible

Five restored site bars total 1,638 and five mown bars total 546, the same figures printed under the 3.0x stat, and the by visit totals in the results add up to the same two numbers. A reader can check the visit counts at the stand without asking.

Paired design stated, not implied

Each restored verge has a named mown pair 200 metres away in the methods block, which is exactly the sentence a reviewer looks for before trusting a site comparison.

Questions people ask

What goes on a field study poster?

Sites, timing, counts, the weather, and what your pairing or blocking controls for. This board spends a whole edge on timing, names all five site pairs in methods, and flags the heatwave visit twice. The rule is that every count on the board should be traceable to a place and a date without asking the presenter.

Can I put a site map on the board?

No poster layout has a fillable map or image slot, so this board lists the five sites with their pairing distances in the methods protocol instead and names where the map is published. In practice a named site list with distances answers the same reviewer question a map would.

How do I show four sampling visits?

This layout carries four timeline slots across the top, each with a date, a name and one line of text. If you visited more than four times, merge adjacent visits into periods rather than dropping the timeline; the by visit counts can still be reported in full in the results text.

How do I handle a visit with bad weather?

Keep it, flag it, and show both arms dipping together. This board flags the January heatwave on the timeline and in methods, and the results text points out that counts fell by a third in both treatments that week, which is what a weather effect looks like and a treatment effect does not.

Landscape or portrait for field work?

Landscape when time is the story, because a timeline reads naturally across a wide board; this example is 2340 by 1656 pixels on the A0 landscape canvas. Portrait suits a field study organised around one deep result rather than a season of repeated measurements.

Where does the weather log go?

One protocol entry: this board records that temperature and wind were logged on every walk, and that visit three fell in a heatwave. The full log belongs with the data, behind a printed link, not on the board, but the fact that it exists is stated where a reviewer will look for it.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked 29 September 2026.