Field Research 101Field Research 1012001-20022001-2002

Forest EdgeForest Edge

Tree ProjectTree Project

ObjectiveTo map out a Forest Community and tocompare and contrast differentsoil types

With your ResearcherWith your ResearcherBrad DotsonBrad Dotson

Altoona High Altoona High

SchoolSchool

How It all was done First perimeter triangles were

placed out for reference point so that I did not cross old paths and previously recorded trees

How It all was done

Trees were “marked” digitally by a GPS unit. And given a number (waypoint)

How It all was done

Then the species name and DBH (Diameter Breast Height) were correlated with Waypoint number

How It all was done

The GPS data was then transferred to the computer via Waypoint.exe.

The Points were taken from Waypoint format and projected into a Archview layout of the Heinke Farm Using AV Garmin Software

How It all was done

The GPS data was then transferred to the computer via Waypoint.exe.

The Points were taken from Waypoint format and projected into a Archview layout of the Heinke Farm Using AV Garmin Software

How it all was done The trees were laid over

the soil map and the Quadrats were picked by three characteristics

1. They had to be within a 1000 sq meter Quadrat

2. All the trees were on the forest edge

3. All the trees were on the same soil type

How it all was done The trees were laid over

the soil map and the Quadrats were picked by three characteristics

1. They had to be within a 1000 sq meter Quadrat

2. All the trees were on the forest edge

3. All the trees were on the same soil type

How it was all done

Next each tree in each Quadrat was typed into Microsoft Excel

From there the data was categorized by: Tree Species Tree density (amount of trees compared with

the total amount of trees) Layers (Sapling, Middle Layer, and Overstory Further they were cut into Density Sapling

Layer, Density Middle Layer… and so on

How it all got done

From those specifications I was able to compare each Quadrat to find my ultimate goal of determining the differences between tree composition and soil type.

Quadrat 1 Quadrat 2 Quadrat 3Quadrat 4

Quadrat 5

Saplings

Middle Story

Overstory0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Black Oak

Saplings

Middle Story

Overstory

Quadrat 5 Sapling Density

0%

5%

0%

14%

0%0%

54%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

17%

5%Black Cherry

Black Oak

Black Spruce

Blue Beech

Choke Cherry

Long SpurHawthornPaper Birch

Pin Cherry

Quaking Aspen

Red Maple

Red Pine

Tag Alder

Swamp WhiteOakWhite Pine

Quadrat 1Quadrat 2Quadrat 3

Quadrat 4Quadrat 5

Saplings

Middle Story

Overstory0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Red Maple SaplingsMiddle StoryOverstory

Percentage of Overstory ofQuadrat 1

3%

0%

0%

22%

37%

0%16%

0%0%

0%

0%14%5%3%

Black Cherry Black Oak Black SpruceBlue Beech Choke Cherry Long Spur HawthornPaper Birch Pin Cherry Quaking AspenRed Maple Red Pine Tag AlderSwamp White Oak White Pine

Analysis at the beginning

Then you could ask yourself, like I did: I see all this data but how do I know that they are different and not just a fluke in the soil, trees, or maybe even the researcher?

Analysis

I went for help and I got some information on how to analyze my data using statistical software.

Analysis

The research called for an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test using two factors without replication.

From this point I compared all the data using a 95% confidence level.

I crossed Sapling layers of Quadrats with Density percents, Middle Story with Species Variety, and so on and so forth...

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance LCD for quadrats Group 1 AverageQuadrat 1 14 100 7.14285714 97.5158 8.519958043 Quadrat 1 7.1428571Quadrat 2 14 100 7.14285714 233.434 Quadrat 2 7.1428571Quadrat 3 14 100 7.14285714 128.828 There is no statistical differenceQuadrat 3 7.1428571Quadrat 4 14 100 7.14285714 483.516 between Quadrats overallQuadrat 4 7.1428571Quadrat 5 14 100 7.14285714 174.285 Quadrat 5 7.1428571

Black Cherry 5 13.84831075 2.76966215 6.92537 LCD for species Group 1 Average Group 2 AverageBlack Oak 5 16.54013778 3.30802756 9.64181 14.25661664 Black Cherry 2.7696621 Red Maple 45.2175267Black Spruce 5 2.786410888 0.55728218 1.01697 Black Oak 3.3080276Blue Beech 5 54.81212336 10.9624247 239.3 There is a statistical differenceBlack Spruce 0.5572822Choke Cherry 5 5.216134542 1.04322691 4.12772 between species overall Blue Beech 10.962425Long Spur Hawthorn 5 2.488048674 0.49760973 0.69484 Choke Cherry 1.0432269Paper Birch 5 42.80774724 8.56154945 57.8563 Group 1 < Group 2 Long Spur Hawthorn0.4976097Pin Cherry 5 32.91386033 6.58277207 136.019 Paper Birch 8.5615494Quaking Aspen 5 21.04680459 4.20936092 41.8206 Pin Cherry 6.5827721Red Maple 5 226.0876334 45.2175267 557.428 Quaking Aspen4.2093609Red Pine 5 11.83064997 2.36612999 4.88612 Red Pine 2.36613Tag Alder 5 63.39825201 12.6796504 353.833 Tag Alder 12.67965Swamp White Oak 5 0 0 0 Swamp White Oak 0White Pine 5 6.22388648 1.2447773 2.27282 White Pine 1.2447773

Anova: Two-Factor Without Replication ANOVA Middle DensityANOVASource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Rows 1.819E-12 4 4.5475E-13 4.2E-15 1 2.549761291Columns 8865.23824 13 681.941403 6.26155 6.95E-07 1.91345606Error 5663.2899 52 108.909421

Total 14528.5281 69

Interpretation of data

Overall there was only one difference between the Quadrats taken and the soil type that the Quadrat was on. That was between the Quadrat 1 and Quadrat 3, 4, and 5. I stream-lined my findings and found that it had occurred in the Middle story of the Quadrats.

Conclusions

So the different soil types had produced different tree composition, although very slight. There was a difference between the soil types on this small of a soil scale. The soil types had changed only by a couple of degrees of slope, the composition of the soil, and the moisture in the soil.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Now,Find the Researcher