User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Today I began my data collection activities for my project at along D’Herbomez Creek in Heritage Park. I’ve sampled 6 out of 10 transects, each with 10-15 quadrants. In this I’ve come across a few challenges. For one, I say 10-15 quadrants because while I intended to sample 15 quadrants per transect, some steep slopes have prevented this from occurring based on my sampling model. I’m continuing with 15 where possible but the final analysis may be of 10 to eliminate the incomplete samples from the data set. I’m finding so far that 10 should be enough to disprove my hypothesis regardless. Another challenge I didn’t foresee and perhaps should have, is the thickness of the brush in places. My initial observations saw lots of good sampling areas, but my method of randomization has sent me straight through some thickets of blackberry and other shrubs. I’ve managed but it’s definitely not the same as sampling an open field. As far as my hypothesis, it seems to have already been disproven based on the patterns (or lack of) that I am seeing thus far. The patterns I initially observed visually, and to a lesser degree experimentally in a previous activity, don’t seem to be holding up when other, randomly chosen sites are selected. This is somewhat disappointing, but even a false hypothesis adds to our understanding.
I agree that 10 quadrats is likely enough per transect and you have it right, even if you don’t find results that is interesting too. That type of result can sometimes leave even more things to think about for the discussion section – why were there no patterns, did some transects contribute to this pattern more than others, some species, were there other differences you observed along your transects?