Sarah Jeanette Haynes

14 September 2010

BMZ 115H Lab Report #1

Measure Twice, Cut Once

Hypothesis:

The hypothesis for this experiment was that plant species are not uniformly distributed within
the study are thus making the null hypothesis that they are in fact uniformly distributed. We went
about proving this hypothesis by dividing the study area into quadrats and taking quantitative
samples of the plant species within each quadrat. The data collected and subsequent analysis and
results were as follows:

Results/ Data Analysis:

Results:

The apparent results of both data and analysis support the hypothesis. With our current data
sample, there is little to no consistency in the distribution of plant species in the study area. The
table and subsequent within the data analysis better illustrate this below. The analysis showed
that though factors such as weather or foot traffic may contribute to plant distribution, there are
too many unknown factors to reach a conclusive decision.

Data Analysis:

The data which was collected by our class proves the hypothesis, “plant species are not

uniformly distributed within the study area” to be true. In analyzing the data samples from all

species as well as individuals, there is no apparent pattern. I chose to explore the data is an

attempt to find a pattern by selecting species that appeared in a range of frequencies. These

species were Festuca sp., Glechoma hederacea, Medicago lupulina, and Viola sororia.

Across all data sets, though it is clear which species’ are more or less abundant (Festuca

and Medicago respectively), within the data set for individuals, disbursement is random. In

working to determine whether or not plant disbursement was random, I found the range of

percent cover for those species which I analyzed specifically in table 2-3. What I found with all
three tables was that the range was rather large for each species, thus meaning that there was no

solid disbursement pattern, otherwise the range for each species, especially within a given

quadrant would be relatively small. In table 2-2, I chose the aforementioned most and least

abundant presence with two species with moderate presence. I assumed that if a pattern existed it

would also be visible by randomly choosing quadrants and sections from which to collect data

for these plants. What I found was that the ranges were still large in relation to percent cover,

thus proving the hypothesis to be true.

As previously mentioned, Festuca was the most abundant plant species in the sample

area. This may be do to the fact that the quadrant for which we collected data was far from the

footpath, thus reducing damage from pedestrians, and it was also a well enough distance from

the shrubs and building to receive adequate sunlight. As the Festuca was able to grow tall do to

environmental factors, it may have hindered the growth and presence of the Medicago. In

conclusion, do to optimal environmental conditions, some species are able to thrive thus

inhibiting the growth of others. However, the distribution of said species independent of each

other is random with no pre-ordained or palpable pattern.

Quadr Festu Glecho Medica Viola

ant ca ma go soror
Identif sp. hedera lupulin ia
ier cea a
B4 51 0 0 28
A1, B3 68.5 3 1 1.5
A4, C2 37.5 0 0 7.5
C4, B1 54 11 0 3.5
C3, 40.3 3 0 13.6
B4,A2
A1, B2, 56.25 4.5 0 3.25
C3, D4
C2, 42 2.25 0 3.25
A2,D4,
C3
All Plots 51.56 4.44 0.125 5.8

Discussion

Though it is true that our original data set supports the hypothesis, it does not prove it to be true.

This is due to the sample size used in our field study. In order to reach a pattern or stable data,

the sample size needs to be at least 544 as shown in the graph below:
In any experiment a large sample size is crucial to collecting relevant and applicable data. This is

because with more data, there is less room for error and as a scientist it is the only way to gain a

true sense of your sample area. This is more difficult but also more important in field studies

than lab experiments because there is less control over the environmental factors in a field study.

Ultimately, though our data was collected and analyzed in a scientific manner, the lack of a large

sample size prohibited both the proving and disproving of our hypothesis.