FERMI QUADRAT PRAIRIE STUDY 2006

Back to Period 3 Student List

GPS LOCATION: N:________41 50' 28.3__    W:____88 16' 23.9_______

STUDENT RESEARCHER: ______Kristen D.____________

 

 

 

 

Top Data Table Graphs Comparative Analysis

 

                                                                                                                                                                



















                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                          

 

DATA:

Table of our Fermi Quadrat

Plant Name Total # Plants Found Total Percentage Dominance Importance Value
Big Bluestem 461 49 49 2844
Prairie Dock 3 1 1 52
Sweet Clovers 6 1 1 64
Tall Goldenrod 14 5 5 176
Yarrow 1 0.5 0.5 34

 

 

Table of all quadrat of plot 17

RAW DATA                    
Native Plants Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Relative Dominance Importance Value
Big Bluestem 200 423 11 16.67 0.92 35.25 40.57 27.5 48.62 116.69
Compass Plant 12 30 1 1 0.08 2.5 2.43 2.5 3.45 8.38
Indian Grass 126 222 8 10.5 0.67 18.5 25.56 20 25.52 71.08
Switch Grass 34 38 2 2.83 0.17 3.17 6.9 5 4.37 16.27
Prairie Dock 7 44 3 0.58 0.25 3.67 1.42 7.5 5.06 13.98
Rosinweed 6 5 3 0.5 0.25 0.42 1.22 7.5 0.57 9.29
Yellow Coneflower 5 4 2 0.42 0.17 0.33 1.01 5 0.46 6.47
Wild Bergamot 91 80 4 7.58 0.33 6.67 18.46 10 9.2 37.65
New England Aster 1 15 1 0.08 0.08 1.25 0.2 2.5 1.72 4.43
Tall Boneset 8 7 3 0.67 0.25 0.58 1.62 7.5 0.81 9.93
Foxglove Beard Tongue 1 1 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.2 2.5 0.12 2.82
Indian Hemp 2 1 1 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.41 2.5 0.12 3.02
                   
Non-Native (Weed) Plants Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Relative Dominance Importance Value
Daisy Fleabane 1 1 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 3.03 0.16 3.21
Wild Carrot 86 18 3 7.17 0.25 1.5 2.02 9.09 2.85 13.96
Sweet Clovers (tall) 168 140 5 14 0.42 11.67 3.95 15.15 22.15 41.26
Yarrow 18 27 4 1.5 0.33 2.25 0.42 12.12 4.27 16.82
Tall goldenrod 25 16 4 2.08 0.33 1.33 0.59 12.12 2.53 15.24
Clovers (ground) 2 10 1 0.17 0.08 0.83 0.05 3.03 1.58 4.66
Hairy Vetch 3 17 2 0.25 0.17 1.42 0.07 6.06 2.69 8.82
Drummonds Aster 6 4 1 0.5 0.08 0.33 0.14 3.03 0.63 3.8
Unlisted-Oval leaf 111 154 4 9.25 0.33 12.83 2.61 12.12 24.37 39.1
Unlisted-Grasslike 3831 245 8 319.25 0.67 20.42 90.12 24.24 38.77 153.13
                   
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 Importance Value    
Big Bluestem 35.25 116.69   Big Bluestem 35.25   Unlisted-Grasslike 153.13    
Compass Plant 2.5 8.38   Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42   Big Bluestem 116.69    
Indian Grass 18.5 71.08   Indian Grass 18.5   Indian Grass 71.08    
Switch Grass 3.17 16.27   Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83   Sweet Clovers (tall) 41.26    
Prairie Dock 3.67 13.98   Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67   Unlisted-Oval leaf 39.1    
Rosinweed 0.42 9.29   Wild Bergamot 6.67   Wild Bergamot 37.65    
Yellow Coneflower 0.33 6.47   Prairie Dock 3.67   Yarrow 16.82    
Wild Bergamot 6.67 37.65   Switch Grass 3.17   Switch Grass 16.27    
New England Aster 1.25 4.43   Compass Plant 2.5   Tall goldenrod 15.24    
Tall Boneset 0.58 9.93   Yarrow 2.25   Prairie Dock 13.98    
Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08 2.82   Wild Carrot 1.5   Wild Carrot 13.96    
Indian Hemp 0.08 3.02   Hairy Vetch 1.42   Tall Boneset 9.93    
Daisy Fleabane 0.08 3.21   Tall goldenrod 1.33   Rosinweed 9.29    
Wild Carrot 1.5 13.96   New England Aster 1.25   Hairy Vetch 8.82    
Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67 41.26   Clovers (ground) 0.83   Compass Plant 8.38    
Yarrow 2.25 16.82   Tall Boneset 0.58   Yellow Coneflower 6.47    
Tall goldenrod 1.33 15.24   Rosinweed 0.42   Clovers (ground) 4.66    
Clovers (ground) 0.83 4.66   Yellow Coneflower 0.33   New England Aster 4.43    
Hairy Vetch 1.42 8.82   Drummonds Aster 0.33   Drummonds Aster 3.8    
Drummonds Aster 0.33 3.8   Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08   Daisy Fleabane 3.21    
Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83 39.1   Indian Hemp 0.08   Indian Hemp 3.02    
Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42 153.13   Daisy Fleabane 0.08   Foxglove Beard Tongue 2.82    
 

 

 

 

 

GRAPHS OF DOMINANCE AND IMPORTANCE VALUE:

 

 

 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

Comparative Analysis

 

      Part #1.My seven grade class took a field trip to Fermi Lab to give them information about their prairie in doing so we needed to know the following things dominance, importance value, and diversity. So we could know how those things are important in the prairie. Like importance value is three different things added together to get numbers of a certain type of species in the prairie. The formula to find the importance value is relative dominance + relative frequency + relative diversity. We also needed to know about the dominance in a prairie. Dominance is how much room something takes up. For instance an oak tree would have a big dominance because it has a large trunk so it takes up more room then a plant which would have a smaller dominance. The dominance also has an effect on the environment conditions. Which one example would be the lighting a tree with a lot of branches would make a lot of shade making it cooler on the ground. The formula to find dominance is the total percentage covered of species/ total area sampled. Not to mention in a prairie you would need the dominance to find the percentage of a plant that covers your qudrat. One last thing we needed to know about is diversity. This is the different amount of species in an area in this case a prairie. The more variety of species the better it is for a healthy area because it increases the habitat of animals in the area. In the prairie it would increase the amount of insects because there are a lot of plant eating insects. The formula to find the diversity is total number of different species for all qudrat.  

       Part #2. Comparing the 2005 data with the 2006 data I saw that the numbers with the dominance and important value changed. For instance in 2005 there was a big change for the number of dominance which was 4.38, big blue stem. And in 2006 there was an even bigger difference of 24.19, which was native plant. You can predict that the prairie has grown in dominance in 2005 and 2006. You can also say that there was more dominance then ever in 2006. For the importance value was greater too because weeds have shorter roots and are easily destroyed then the prairie so that’s why the prairie had the most importance value instead of the weeds. Overall I can say that 2006 had more prairie plants then 2005. Finally about the diversity is that it has for the most part stayed the same. There has been some plants moved around like big blue stem it went from being the biggest to being the second biggest. In my qudrat I had a diversity of five plants listed. And most of the plants I found were in the top ten meaning that I had a high diversity.

       Part #3. I can predict that in the next ten years, the prairie will grow greater in dominance and importance value. I can say this because in 2006 the greatest dominance was 24.19 and even though it was bigger in 1992. The dominance after 1992 grew smaller but now in the past couple of years it has risen and I think will keep rising. Also I can predict that big blue stem will soon disappear because in the year 2006 it went from being the greatest to being the second greatest. Since, it was beat by native plant in 2006.

           Part #4.  I have learned a lot about parries and that there is more to them then just plants. Like there are a lot of different kinds of plants like big blue stem and native grass. There are also a lot of weeds in the prairie that I didn’t know you could collect data for. I also learned that if we don’t be careful all of the parries will be destroyed and a state once call “prairie state” will just be buildings and houses. Not to mention I learned how to find the types and the amount of different parries grass which is important so we can record if the prairie is growing greater or smaller. In conclusion the prairie is important and we need to keep it alive.

 

 

 

 

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.