User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
I plan on studying Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (Kinnikinnick).
Hypothesis: Overhead plant life will negatively effect the height of kinnikinnick.
Prediction: Plant height will decrease under layers of vegetation
Response variable: Kinnikinnick
Explanatory variable: Overhead plant life (continuous)
Study is continuous. (Regression approach)
An underlying process that may have caused the observed patterns could be soil type. The open areas had little to no LFH layer and the soil was coarse and very well-drained. The areas of more cover had a little larger of an LFH layer and the soil was less course but still well-drained. This could be the underlying cause of the pigment and growth difference between the two locations.
I like how clear you’ve made your study. Your variables and predictions all make sense. Maybe consider explaining what type of overhead plant life will affect the kinnikinnick, for instance if different types of leaves or tree species are more detrimental than others.
I am not clear from your post that your response and predictor variables are continuous, you will have to be a lot more specific and provide more details in your assignments. For example, Kinnikinnick could be presence absence, or height as low/med/high and then be categorical. I know from our emails you are planning on measuring plant height and/or number and length of branches which would be continuous.
As well, you will have to put some thought into how you are measuring overhead plant life as there are different ways.
In terms of the underlying processes, could the amount of overhead vegetation and LFH layer thickness be related? Could be hard to disentangle light levels and soil types without an experiment, but as long as you consider both in your paper.