FERMI QUADRAT PRAIRIE STUDY 2006

Back to Period 9 Student List

GPS LOCATION: N:41° 50`27.7    W:88° 16` 26.1

STUDENT RESEARCHER: BREANNA

Aerial View Of Fermi Prairie Quadrats Plot 17

 

Fermi Site Geographic Map

Fermi Lab Animals And Plants

                              

 

Top Data Table Graphs Comparative Analysis

 

DATA:

Table Of Our Quadrat

 

PLANT NAME DOMINANCE IMPORTANCE VALUE TOTAL NUMBER PLANTS FOUND TOTAL PERCENTAGE
Big Blue Stem 17 61.7 7 17
Indian Grass 24 148.7 27 24
Mountain Mint 5 57.7 9 5
New England Aster 4 36.7 4 4
Rosinweed 2 26.7 2 2
Crab Grass 48 5216.7 1288 48

Table Of All Quadrats Of Plot 17

RAW DATA                 RAW DATA  
Native Plants Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Native Plants Total Plants Found
Big Bluestem 200 423 11 16.67 0.92 35.25 40.57 27.5 Big Bluestem -69.706786
Compass Plant 12 30 1 1 0.08 2.5 2.43 2.5 Compass Plant -4.3167857
Indian Grass 126 222 8 10.5 0.67 18.5 25.56 20 Indian Grass -37.303214
Switch Grass 34 38 2 2.83 0.17 3.17 6.9 5 Switch Grass -7.6510714
Prairie Dock 7 44 3 0.58 0.25 3.67 1.42 7.5 Prairie Dock -2.7003571
Rosinweed 6 5 3 0.5 0.25 0.42 1.22 7.5 Rosinweed 2.10821429
Yellow Coneflower 5 4 2 0.42 0.17 0.33 1.01 5 Yellow Coneflower 1.15857143
Wild Bergamot 91 80 4 7.58 0.33 6.67 18.46 10 Wild Bergamot -19.563214
New England Aster 1 15 1 0.08 0.08 1.25 0.2 2.5 New England Aster -0.7228571
Tall Boneset 8 7 3 0.67 0.25 0.58 1.62 7.5 Tall Boneset 1.5375
Foxglove Beard Tongue 1 1 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.2 2.5 Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.94285714
Indian Hemp 2 1 1 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.41 2.5 Indian Hemp 0.78178571
                   
Non-Native (Weed) Plants Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Non-Native (Weed) Plants Total Plants Found
Daisy Fleabane 1 1 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 3.03 Daisy Fleabane 1.13714286
Wild Carrot 86 18 3 7.17 0.25 1.5 2.02 9.09 Wild Carrot -17.854643
Sweet Clovers (tall) 168 140 5 14 0.42 11.67 3.95 15.15 Sweet Clovers (tall) -48.6425
Yarrow 18 27 4 1.5 0.33 2.25 0.42 12.12 Yarrow -1.4660714
Tall goldenrod 25 16 4 2.08 0.33 1.33 0.59 12.12 Tall goldenrod -1.7992857
Clovers (ground) 2 10 1 0.17 0.08 0.83 0.05 3.03 Clovers (ground) -0.1660714
Hairy Vetch 3 17 2 0.25 0.17 1.42 0.07 6.06 Hairy Vetch 0.26142857
Drummonds Aster 6 4 1 0.5 0.08 0.33 0.14 3.03 Drummonds Aster -0.3928571
Unlisted-Oval leaf 111 154 4 9.25 0.33 12.83 2.61 12.12 Unlisted-Oval leaf -38.422143
Unlisted-Grasslike 3831 245 8 319.25 0.67 20.42 90.12 24.24 Unlisted-Grasslike -916.75393
                   
SORTED DATA BELOW                 SORTED DATA BELOW
                   
Native Plants by Dominance Dominance   Native Plants by I.V Importance Value         Native Plants by Dominance Dominance
Big Bluestem 35.25   Big Bluestem 116.69         Big Bluestem 35.25
Indian Grass 18.5   Indian Grass 71.08         Indian Grass 18.5
Wild Bergamot 6.67   Wild Bergamot 37.65         Wild Bergamot 6.67
Prairie Dock 3.67   Switch Grass 16.27         Prairie Dock 3.67
Switch Grass 3.17   Prairie Dock 13.98         Switch Grass 3.17
Compass Plant 2.5   Tall Boneset 9.93         Compass Plant 2.5
New England Aster 1.25   Rosinweed 9.29         New England Aster 1.25
Tall Boneset 0.58   Compass Plant 8.38         Tall Boneset 0.58
Rosinweed 0.42   Yellow Coneflower 6.47         Rosinweed 0.42
Yellow Coneflower 0.33   New England Aster 4.43         Yellow Coneflower 0.33
Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08   Indian Hemp 3.02         Foxglove Beard Tongue 0.08
Indian Hemp 0.08   Foxglove Beard Tongue 2.82         Indian Hemp 0.08
                   
                   
Non-Native (Weed) Plants by Dominance Dominance   Non-Native (Weed) Plants by I.V. Importance Value         Non-Native (Weed) Plants by Dominance Dominance
Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42   Unlisted-Grasslike 153.13         Unlisted-Grasslike 20.42
Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83   Sweet Clovers (tall) 41.26         Unlisted-Oval leaf 12.83
Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67   Unlisted-Oval leaf 39.1         Sweet Clovers (tall) 11.67
Yarrow 2.25   Yarrow 16.82         Yarrow 2.25
Wild Carrot 1.5   Tall goldenrod 15.24         Wild Carrot 1.5
Hairy Vetch 1.42   Wild Carrot 13.96         Hairy Vetch 1.42
Tall goldenrod 1.33   Hairy Vetch 8.82         Tall goldenrod 1.33
Clovers (ground) 0.83   Clovers (ground) 4.66         Clovers (ground) 0.83
Drummonds Aster 0.33   Drummonds Aster 3.8         Drummonds Aster 0.33
Daisy Fleabane 0.08   Daisy Fleabane 3.21         Daisy Fleabane 0.08

 

Top

 

Quadrat Map From Our Fermi Plot

 

GRAPHS OF DOMINANCE AND IMPORTANCE VALUE:

 

 

Graphs Of Dominance and Importance Value For All Quadrats 2006

 

 

Top

 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

Part One

 

            This fall my 7ups team went to Fermi Lab for our prairie unit. It was cold, somewhere in the 30’s, and very, very windy. The data you will see was taken by my group (Gino, Marcy, Nick and I) in our little quadrat. If you were wondering, a quadrat is a 1 meter by 1 meter square with prairie plants in the middle. To compare our quadrat to others we used importance value, dominance, and density. It’s probably best that you know what they are.

            First, I’ll introduce to you importance value. This tells us how dominant, how frequent, and how dense a plant is in the ecosystem. To find the importance value you would add up your data in relative density, relative frequency, and relative dominance.

            Next we have dominance, which is just the kind of plants that are the most noticeable and take up the most room. They also provide food and shelter for animals that live in the prairie. But, on the negative side, they mix up the soil chemistry and they block the sunlight that the other non-dominant plants need. To find dominance you divide the total number of species by the total area of your quadrat. But you can’t compare weed and plant dominances because to find them, you use different formulas.

            Finally, we have density, which is how much of a certain plant is an area. To find density you take the total number of a certain plant and divide by the area.

            We use these three topics to find out how healthy the prairie is. If there’s a lot of diversity, then the prairie is in good shape and it’s healthy. On the other hand, if the prairie is almost entirely Big Blue Stem, we know it needs work. 

 

Part Two

 

            The leader in dominance each year was Big Blue Stem: 19.93 in 2004, 74.38 in 2005, and 24.19 in 2006. It’s also the leader in importance value for each of the years, but it was second in our quadrat next to unlisted grass-like, or crab grass. That was actually our top in dominance and importance value. Unlisted grass-like actually beat out Big Blue Stem in 2004 by 2.95 and in 2006 by 3.64. In dominance Wild Bergamot came in second for the prairie plants, and Tall Goldenrod came in second in 2004 and 2005 in the Weeds category. Sweet Clover took control of the second place spot but only by 4.43. For importance value Wild Bergamot and Indian Grass went head to head. Wild Bergamot came in second in 2004 with 45.38 and in 2006 with 47.92 and Indian Grass in 2005 with 37.3. For the weeds Tall Goldenrod and Sweet Clover “battled it out”. Tall Goldenrod had 40.12 in 2004 and 48.33 in 2005, but Sweet Clover scooted in with 30.6 in 2006.

            The diversity of my little quadrat was very different than Plot 17 was in 2006. We only had 6 different plants: Big Blue Stem, Indian Grass, unlisted grass-like, New England Aster, Rosinweed and Mountain Mint. Plot 17 had over 10, probably over 15 plants. We didn’t have many of the Plot 17 plants, like Wild Bergamot which was very high in the charts for dominance and importance value. Only four of our plants are even on the Top 10 charts! Only Big Blue Stem, Indian Grass, unlisted grass-like and Rosinweed made it. I think our quadrat had a much smaller diversity because it is just a tiny, tiny section out of a giant big one. Some of the plants that are in one section may not be in the quadrat we picked. Another reason could be that the other plants that live in the section could block the sunlight or mix up the soil chemistry so that it doesn’t fit the other plant’s needs.

 

Part Three

 

            I expect Big Blue Stem to increase slowly but then make a sudden, dramatic drop, just like it did from 2004 to 2005, and then quickly make its way back up, like it did from 2005 to 2006. I think unlisted grass-like will remain at the top of the charts because 1)it’s been that way each year and 2) crab grass is a common weed that we find in lots of places. Indian Grass might make a sudden come back. In 1992 it was in second place for dominance and importance value with 12.69 in dominance and 100.21 in importance value. It was actually ahead of Big Blue Stem. In 2004 it was only a tiny 5.38 for dominance and 22.31 in importance value. Each year it’s been working its way up, except in 2005 when all of the plants’ numbers dropped. At some point, I think Indian Grass will become second again. I’m guessing that Big Blue Stem and Indian Grass will keep switching places for second, slowly but surely.

 

Part Four

 

            Throughout this prairie unit I’ve learned many things. One of them being that the entire prairie isn’t just one type of grass; it’s made of many different species. If it didn’t have all those different grasses it would be unhealthy. There were actually too many plants to name all of them. I also learned how you find the dominance and importance value for a plant, and exactly what those two values are. Another one of the things I learned was that a small section of a big section may not always be the same as the big section, even if it is a part of it. If you think about it, a puzzle piece is the same way, it’s a piece of a larger thing, but it is only a tiny, little part. But if you take it out the bigger picture wouldn’t be the same. All in all Fermi was a true learning experience.

 

Top

 

 

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.