FERMI QUADRAT PRAIRIE STUDY 2006

Back to Period 2 List of Student

 



Top Data Table Graphs Comparative Analysis


GPS LOCATION: N: 41° 50'28.3" W:88°16'24.6"

STUDENT RESEARCHER: Matt M.


Map of Fermi                                                                                                                                  


















 

DATA:

Plant Name Plants Found Total Percentage Dominice Importance Value
Big Bluestem 12 17 17 102.5
Indian Grass 17 16 16 120.5
Wild Bergamont 6 1 1 38.9
Sweet Clovers 12 3 3 67.9
Tall Goldenrod 1 0.1 0.1 16.74
Wild Carrot 5 2 2 37.4
Yarrow 3 1 1 26.9

 

 

Table of all Quadrats of plot 17

RAW DATA              
Native Plants Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density
Big Bluestem 200 423 11 16.67 0.92 35.25 40.57
Compass Plant 12 30 1 1 0.08 2.5 2.43
Indian Grass 126 222 8 10.5 0.67 18.5 25.56
Switch Grass 34 38 2 2.83 0.17 3.17 6.9
Prairie Dock 7 44 3 0.58 0.25 3.67 1.42
Rosinweed 6 5 3 0.5 0.25 0.42 1.22
Yellow Coneflower 5 4 2 0.42 0.17 0.33 1.01
Wild Bergamot 91 80 4 7.58 0.33 6.67 18.46
New England Aster 1 15 1 0.08 0.08 1.25 0.2
Tall Boneset 8 7 3 0.67 0.25 0.58 1.62
Foxglove Beard Tongue 1 1 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.2
Indian Hemp 2 1 1 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.41
             
Non-Native (Weed) Plants Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density
Daisy Fleabane 1 1 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02
Wild Carrot 86 18 3 7.17 0.25 1.5 2.02
Sweet Clovers (tall) 168 140 5 14 0.42 11.67 3.95
Yarrow 18 27 4 1.5 0.33 2.25 0.42
Tall goldenrod 25 16 4 2.08 0.33 1.33 0.59
Clovers (ground) 2 10 1 0.17 0.08 0.83 0.05
Hairy Vetch 3 17 2 0.25 0.17 1.42 0.07
Drummonds Aster 6 4 1 0.5 0.08 0.33 0.14
Unlisted-Oval leaf 111 154 4 9.25 0.33 12.83 2.61
Unlisted-Grasslike 3831 245 8 319.25 0.67 20.42 90.12
             
SORTED DATA BELOW              
             
Native Plants by Dominance Dominance   Native Plants by I.V Importance Value      
Big Bluestem 35.25   Big Bluestem 116.69      
Indian Grass 18.5   Indian Grass 71.08      
Wild Bergamot 6.67   Wild Bergamot 37.65      
Prairie Dock 3.67   Switch Grass 16.27      
Switch Grass 3.17   Prairie Dock 13.98      
Compass Plant 2.5   Tall Boneset 9.93      
New England Aster 1.25   Rosinweed 9.29      
Tall Boneset 0.58   Compass Plant 8.38      
Rosinweed 0.42   Yellow Coneflower 6.47      
Yellow Coneflower 0.33   New England Aster 4.43      
Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08   Indian Hemp 3.02      
Indian Hemp 0.08   Foxglove Beard Tongue 2.82      
             
             
Non-Native (Weed) Plants by Dominance Dominance   Non-Native (Weed) Plants by I.V. Importance Value      
Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42   Unlisted-Grasslike 153.13      
Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83   Sweet Clovers (tall) 41.26      
Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67   Unlisted-Oval leaf 39.1      
Yarrow 2.25   Yarrow 16.82      
Wild Carrot 1.5   Tall goldenrod 15.24      
Hairy Vetch 1.42   Wild Carrot 13.96      
Tall goldenrod 1.33   Hairy Vetch 8.82      
Clovers (ground) 0.83   Clovers (ground) 4.66      
Drummonds Aster 0.33   Drummonds Aster 3.8      
Daisy Fleabane 0.08   Daisy Fleabane 3.21      
             
             
             
             
ALL SPECIES Dominance Importance Value ALL SPECIES Dominance   ALL SPECIES
Big Bluestem 35.25 116.69   Big Bluestem 35.25   Unlisted-Grasslike
Compass Plant 2.5 8.38   Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42   Big Bluestem
Indian Grass 18.5 71.08   Indian Grass 18.5   Indian Grass
Switch Grass 3.17 16.27   Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83   Sweet Clovers (tall)
Prairie Dock 3.67 13.98   Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67   Unlisted-Oval leaf
Rosinweed 0.42 9.29   Wild Bergamot 6.67   Wild Bergamot
Yellow Coneflower 0.33 6.47   Prairie Dock 3.67   Yarrow
Wild Bergamot 6.67 37.65   Switch Grass 3.17   Switch Grass
New England Aster 1.25 4.43   Compass Plant 2.5   Tall goldenrod
Tall Boneset 0.58 9.93   Yarrow 2.25   Prairie Dock
Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08 2.82   Wild Carrot 1.5   Wild Carrot
Indian Hemp 0.08 3.02   Hairy Vetch 1.42   Tall Boneset
Daisy Fleabane 0.08 3.21   Tall goldenrod 1.33   Rosinweed
Wild Carrot 1.5 13.96   New England Aster 1.25   Hairy Vetch
Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67 41.26   Clovers (ground) 0.83   Compass Plant
Yarrow 2.25 16.82   Tall Boneset 0.58   Yellow Coneflower
Tall goldenrod 1.33 15.24   Rosinweed 0.42   Clovers (ground)
Clovers (ground) 0.83 4.66   Yellow Coneflower 0.33   New England Aster
Hairy Vetch 1.42 8.82   Drummonds Aster 0.33   Drummonds Aster
Drummonds Aster 0.33 3.8   Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08   Daisy Fleabane
Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83 39.1   Indian Hemp 0.08   Indian Hemp
Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42 153.13   Daisy Fleabane 0.08   Foxglove Beard Tongue

 

 

 

GRAPHS OF DOMINANCE AND IMPORTANCE VALUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graphs of dominance and importance values for all quadrats

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

                                                Fermi Lab Analysis

 

                                                                Part one

            The 7th grade 7Ups team went to the Fermi lab prairie. While they were there they used many tools including dominance of the prairie, importance value of the prairie, and the diversity. These are all things that people can use to find information out about our prairie.

 

            To start we have to know what the dominance means. Dominance means how much of something you have or the population of something. This tool was useful to the 7Ups because they were able to find out how much of a certain plant or weed there was. For example, you can find out what kind of plant is dominating the prairie. With that information you can tell whether or not you need to plant or take out something in your prairie. That helps because maybe you need to find out what animals need a certain plant or if it’s blocking other plants from getting things they need to grow.

 

            Next there is the importance value. The importance value is finding out what kind of animals live or depends on the plant and what things the plant is used for. With this information you can tell if you would need to depend on it or not. For example if you didn’t have a lot of a certain plant and many animals depend on it then you would want to get more of that plant. This also can work with many other things including animals and other resources. Also that relates back to dominance because you can compare those to find out what your prairie needs.

           

            Finally you can use diversity to find out information. Diversity is how much of an animal or plant you have and how many different types of animals there are. With this information you can find out what those plants and animals need and what they are using. Also you can find out what you have working with in your prairie and what you could use to improve your prairie. For example if you have two species in your prairie you need to know what they require and what they produce.

                                                                    Part two

           

            For comparisons I noticed that my quadrat had many different answers than others. For my diversity the single quadrat had about seven different kinds of plants. The quadrat for plot 17 had about 10 different plants. This means that plot 17 had a bigger variety of plants and animals. This could also show that their quadrat has different types of animals and others things. Also it could mean that their atmosphere is different or larger. This helps us find out these things and other important information that could be useful to help us compare quadrats.

 

            Next for dominance I have noticed that my quadrat has mostly equal plants. That means that there is not really a dominate plate in my quadrat. For the plot 17 quadrat I noticed that there is mostly an equal grouping except in 2006 where there is a dominate big bluestem. This means that at one point from 2005 to 2006 there was some kind of change between the quadrats. Maybe something happened like a drought or the animals changed. This could also mean that the dominance could be different because of climate, or the weather.

 

            Finally my quadrat has a different importance value than plot 17 has. My importance value is manly the same but the importance value for 2005 and 2006 of plot 17 has changed. For example some of the numbers went down and some increased. This means that the prairie is slowly changing. An example is life in 2007 when the prairie changed a little bit more than you could find out that the prairie was just just changing over time. But if the prairie had a sudden drop then something could be wrong or something could have happened to the climate. These are all reasons for drops in the importance value. So in conclusion these are some of the comparisons to plot 17 and my Fermi quadrat.

                                                                        Part three

                        I believe that in the next ten years that prairie plot 17 will not change very much. First of all there has not a very big drop over the years with the data. To begin with the dominance value has not dropped or really changed over a period of time. An example is from 2004 to 2006 there have only been a few points dropped. Also big blue stem and other plants have not really dropped and even when they did it was only several points. This means that the plants are not really changing and are doing well.

 

            Next there are the importance value changes which happen to be very little. For example the importance value has not had many plants changing or having sudden drops in a while. An example is the unlisted grassland and others. They have not really dropped or if they did they raised back the very next year. So I believe this means that plot 17 is not really making to much progress.

 

            Finally I think the diversity is very important. Like the fact you can find out what is growing and not growing or what is living in your quadrat. But for my quadrat I have found out that the plants have not really changed. This means that they are all staying healthy and there are not many weeds. This can lead to helping people find out what is living in there prairie.

 

            In my findings I believe that my prairie will not really change very much over the next ten years. It may have some growth or collapses but will mainly stay constant.

                                                                 Part four

            For my final conclusion on prairies I have learned many things. First I learned how to read data from a prairie. This will help me learn to analyze and read data and several other things. Example would be with graphs and data in social studies and other subjects.

 

            Next I also learned how plants are treated and how they live. Like what they use to survive and what conditions they live in. Also I learned that the plants were sorted and how to find what plants are what. This can also be very valuable information.

 

            Finally I learned more about the history and facts about prairies. For example, Illinois was once made up of tons of prairie land. Unfortunately these have been taken away by man kind. Also I found out how the prairie was given its name by the settlers and other farmers. So in conclusion that is my paper on what I learned from our prairie quadrat unit.

 

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT:

© Copyright 2006, L&T Natural Images and Madison Jr. High, all rights reserved. Contact information: email at lccwik@comcast.net or tcoutts@naperville203.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
This project was created by the 7th grade students of team 7 UPS from Madison Jr. High, Naperville Consolidated Unit School District #203 in Naperville, Illinois with the help of their teacher Mrs. Trudi Coutts along with Technology Lab Director Mrs. Margaret Gilmore. Support for the project came from Principal Ms. Erin Anderson and the other dedicated and cooperative faculty and staff of Madison Jr. High.

 

REFERENCES:
Fermilab Education Department particularly the SIMply Prairie Project. Authors: Bill Fraccaro, Johnson School, Wheaton, IL; Larry Cwik and Pat Franzen, Madison Junior High School, Naperville, IL; and Bernie Jokiel, Gary D, Jewel Middle School, North Aurora, IL.
Created for the NTEP II Fermilab LInC program sponsored by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office and Friends of Fermilab, and funded by United States Department of Energy, Illinois State Board of Education, North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium which is operated by North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL), and the National Science Foundation.