User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Field data was completed today. In total there are 30 replicates with 10 replicates of each condition. One of the issues that arose was that a few of the fronds sampled were eaten by insects or animals and so were shorter than expected. When processing data, these frond measurements will be excluded as they were shorter due to factors other than the amount of sunlight. Another problem I encountered was that it was exceedingly difficult to balance my lab notebook and measuring tape and so I acquired the help of a friend to record the measurements as I read them aloud. A third issue I encountered was trying to avoid stepping on other flora when walking towards and measuring the ferns. Otherwise, the data collection went relatively as indicated in my experimental design. The refinement made during the initial sampling was very helpful in making this process smooth.
One trend I noticed was that the eaten ferns tended to be in the shade treatment. While this does not change my hypothesis or alter it in any way, it is interesting and likely a result of the fact that the plants prefer the dense forest to sunlit urban backyards. Another factor I noticed is that the temperature is cooler in the woods than in the sunlight and I wondered if this was a factor in fern growth. Lastly, I noticed that in the shaded area there are a lot of plants and fungus including ferns, moss, trees, lichen, and other plants whereas in the semi-shaded area there was less variety of plant life as much of it lives on the edge of human activities. The sun area appeared to have a greater variety of grasses and other leafy green plants as opposed to the trees, moss, ferns, and lichen of the shaded forest. This does not change my hypothesis, but could potentially be a factor in accounting for the differences between the treatments.
