User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
PROCESS
Each visit I had to my chosen site left me wondering what attribute to study. At a certain point, I thought that identifying mosses and their location based on limiting physical factors of water availability would be a great way to increase my abilities to identify mosses. However, I couldn’t define a pattern – just that moss grows everywhere around Lost Lake, including underwater. I also want to make sure that I stay on the trail system as much as possible to avoid damaging undergrowth or acting contrary to park rules. I am in a populated area and my actions may be copied by a park user unknowingly.
The next organism that I noticed, are conks! I am only seeing the conks growing in one stand of trees on the west side of the lake in a square area of about 25 m2. This is now the organism I have decided to study as I noted its presence heavily on the west side of Lost Lake but nowhere else around the Lake.
HYPOTHESIS
The distribution of conks growing on trees at Lost Lake is limited to tree species and is determined by tree health.
PREDICTIONS
I predict I will find conks growing on only one tree species in all sections of the tree (lower third, mid-third and top-third) and that I will find conks on trees that have obvious signs of health decline (diminishing canopy, excavation by wildlife, browning needles, severe lean).
POTENTIAL RESPONSE AND EXPLANATORY VARIABLES
My predictor variable is tree species (type). My response variables are the conks (presence or absence) and tree health (good or declining). Both the predictor and response variables are categorical as they are classified into one or more unique categories.
Thanks for sharing your research topic! With a good working knowledge of different tree species your project should be easy to implement. I believe some minor re-wording of your hypothesis and prediction could provide further clarity regarding the patterns you are studying. An example would be to define what it means for conks to be “limited to tree species” – could this be coniferous trees, deciduous trees? In order for your hypothesis to be falsifiable, you need to clearly define the parameters of what you’re studying. You also categorized tree health as a potential response variable, but it is unclear to me in the context of your hypothesis and prediction whether it should be a response or explanatory variable. It reminds me of the “chicken or the egg” proverb. It depends on whether you are hypothesizing that conks are causing tree health decline, making it a response to the presence/absence of conks, or whether you are looking at if conks are opportunistic of trees in decline, in which case it would be an explanatory variable. Finally, as with any study centered around trees, just be sure to use a large enough study area to ensure independence of your samples! Good luck with the rest of your project!
Thank you for the feedback csmith! Much appreciated.