Category: Uncategorized

I had no issues organizing my data. I began by creating 6 tables (1 for each site visit) and have the total number of plants found in each Transect and if they were juvenile, mature, or dead plants. Once I had this information down in organized tables it was much easier to create bar graphs of our findings. I have attached 1 table and a graphical representation of all 6 site visits and their findings. I was surprised of my findings in transects 4-6 during site visits 1-3. This is because Heracleum mantegazzianum is a very strong plant and can handle all sorts of conditions, hense why it has been so successful as an invasive species in North America. But as this is the furthest North it has began to reach in British Columbia, the chances are it just has not made it to the denser forest and higher altitudes at this time. 

(Table 1 – results of plants found on May 25th, 2019. Transect 1-3 are within Section 1 (disturbed sites) and Transects 4-6 are within Section 2 (natural site)).

In hindsight I wish I would have broadened my sample size as I was very limited. However, I believe I was able to gather enough data to conduct my experiment and felt that, while it was a simple design, it was a straightforward enough so that I could digest what was happening at the pace I was comfortable with. For the future I hope to become more confident in creating a design that can be expanded upon and not remain so limited.

I started the tutorial using the area-based model for all three of the sampling techniques. There was not too big of a difference between the duration of the samplings, but I found the fastest of the three techniques to be using the haphazard technique (14 hours). I found that the haphazard technique yielded the more accurate sampling error when it came to rare species, whereas the systematic approach was better in determining percent error results for the two common species. In terms of effectiveness of techniques, the haphazard provided better results, compared to the systematic and random approaches.

Creating a graph to represent the collected data went smoothly as it was easy to represent the total amount of sunlight graphically for each day I spent observing. I created a separate graph for the individual days I collected data, and then combined them in a bar graph that represented the combined amount of time for each marking. Once again, the data supported my initial hypothesis as the markings that contained Seedling 2 averaged the most sunlight exposure. The markings that contained Seedling 1 averaged the least exposure whereas the markings containing Seedling 3 was only slightly lower than that of Seedling 2.

The purpose of my study was to investigate the effectiveness of seedling growth based on exposure to sunlight. Other topics that could be considered in this investigation could include competition over resources between seedlings, and the proximity of neighbouring trees and shrubs that may also create competition for the seedlings. I predicted that increased exposure to sunlight was the cause of Seedling 2’s (the seedling most exposed to sunlight) faster growth rate, and so far the data collected is in support of my initial hypothesis.

Keywords: seedling growth, exposure to sunlight, competition of resources

So far data collection has been going smoothly as the plots chosen have provided effective measurements of the amount of sunlight hitting each seedling at the different hour increments of the day. From my observations, each 5″ segment receives sunlight at some point of the day regardless of the shadow casted by my house, the shed, and the adjacent tree canopy, suggesting that the points chosen are able to yield enough data to support the initial hypothesis. I have noticed that the plots that contain Seedling 2 and Seedling 3 receive the most sunlight during the early morning 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM time slot, whereas Seedling 1 only receives sunlight during the mid afternoon 12:30 PM – 13:30 PM time slot. Seedling 2 remains exposed to the sun throughout all three time slots and continues to signs of steady growth as it remains the tallest in height with its branches continuing to support the most leaves.

Data collection has been going well due to convenient access to the study area. I have been gathering data on the seedlings every Friday in three time intervals to measure amount of sunlight. Because I am limited to only three specimens for this study, I chose to use haphazard sampling using replicates of marks labeled A,B,C,D,E, spaced 4 inches from each other along  a line following the base of the root connecting each seedling. I collect data in the morning from 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM, then again at 12:30 PM-13:30 PM when the sun is right above the seedlings, then again at 16:30 PM-17:30 PM. The data collected was not surprising as it supports my initial hypothesis that Seedling 2 will receive more sunlight.