User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Initial data collection for my backyard observations of Acer glabrum stand density was done using two types of sampling methods: random and systematic. I did not have any problem with the sampling, but I have decided to tweak my methods somewhat in order to best address my hypothesis.
The gist of my project is to quantify the density of maple trees relative to the large cedar tree in my yard. Hypothesis being that stand density increases the further the plot is from the cedar. For the random sample, I used a random number generator app on my phone to establish 10 plots within the site. For the systematic method, I measured stand density along 3 transects at 5, 10, and 15 meters from the base of the tree at designated bearings of 20°, 40°. And 60° for a total of 9 plots.
These methods both affirmed my hypotheses but for final data collection I think I will use the systematic method, but more comprehensively. The study site is located between 0°-100° from the base of the cedar tree. Using the systematic method, and to satisfy the rule of tens, I will establish transects at 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 80°, 90° and 100°with one meter plots located at 5, 10, 15, and 20m along each transect. Each plot will be assessed for the number of maple trees within it. So, my field notes will look like this:
This will give me a total of 50 replicate sites with enough distance between plots to be independent of each other. This would seem to be a method that will provide a robust quantification of the density of maple trees at the site, relative to the cedar tree.
great application of the rule of tens!