FERMI QUADRAT PRAIRIE STUDY 2006

Back to Period 9 Student List

GO BEARS!!!!!!

GPS LOCATION: N:41°50'27.0"    W:88°16'26.4"

Search for:

STUDENT RESEARCHER: Shawn

The weather at Fermi today is

Aerial View of Fermilab

Map of Fermilab

Top Data Table Graphs Comparative Analysis



Weather
Map of our site
Copyrights/legal


Mystery            
Map of Fermilab
Search (in this page)

DATA:   top links

Table of our Fermi Quadrat

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 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

Table of Our Quadrat Only

Plant Name Dominance Importance Value Total # of plant found
Big Bluestem 8 140.6 29
Indian Grass 3 67.6 12
Rosinweed 2 54.6 9
Tall Boneset 0.9 29.5 3
Tall Goldenrod 2 50.6 8
Crabgrass 81 1153.6 264

 

GRAPHS OF DOMINANCE AND IMPORTANCE VALUE:    top links

 

Graphs of Our Quadrat Only

 

 

Graphs of All of Plot 17   top links

If you can see this, you are awesome!

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:    top links

PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION!

            In this web page, I use the terms “Dominance”, “Importance Value”, “Diversity”, and “Quadrat“. I will define these terms in this part.

            A quadrat is a 1m × 1m square where most of the studying takes place. This is where one would count plants and make maps to be used later in getting other values and (obviously) making web pages.

            Second is dominance. Dominance is, in a definition, is: “Dominant plants are the plants that are the most noticeable and take up the most room.” Basically, this value is what plant there is the most of. To get it, there is a mathematical formula. Your science teacher has always told you that science and math are very close. Well, they’re right. To find dominance, solve (total percent coverage of a species) ¸ (total area sampled). It’s not so bad, now is it? This is most likely the easiest to understand. An example is that in a garden, for example, you had a lot of carrots and a few strawberries. The plant with the highest dominance is carrots because you have more of them. Also, the most dominant plant is generally the plant that gives food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predators. That’s dominance in a nutshell.

            Next is importance value. This means, in a definition: “Relative dominance + relative frequency + relative density.” It is used when looking at all of the quadrats’ data.

            Finally we have diversity. Most science teachers will tell you, “It’s the trait that separates one species to another.” Well, they’re right. But in quadrat study, it actually has a mathematical formula behind it. Eww. More math. Anyway, it’s (total number of different species for all quadrats) ¸ (total number of quadrats). As this is a trait that doesn’t change that much, to really see a difference you have to check back on the same area year after year for many years or look at the difference between the first year and the last year.

PART 2: COMPARISON!

            The name explains everything. This is where I compare and contrast the data from 2005 and the data from 2006.

            First is weeds. The diversity is about the same-- for the most part it’s all the same plants in about the same position in dominance between weeds, but the overall dominance had gone down. The diversity in importance value, however, was a little different, with a few different plants between the years.  Both the dominance and importance value of all of plot 17 and my quadrat were about the same.

            Next are actual plants. Although there were a few drastic changes, it was about the same for the most part in the way of diversity.  The dominance had a few extreme changes also, but was overall higher. The importance value skyrocketed upwards overall, and except for unlisted grass-like, the plants’ importance value was higher than the weeds’.

PART 3: PREDICTION!

            Again, obvious. This is where I make an educated guess about the next ten years’ plant life. Wow.

            In 2004, the highest-ranked plant in dominance was Big Bluestem with a dominance of 19.93. The highest ranked weed was crabgrass, with a dominance of 22.88. The total dominance of the top 5 weeds was 36.14. The total dominance of the top 5 plants was 33.53. So the plants did better. The importance value pretty much followed suit.

            In 2005, the highest-ranked plant in dominance was the same as the year before with a dominance of 4.38. The highest ranked weed was crabgrass again, with a dominance of a whopping 42.6. The total dominance of the top 5 weeds was 72.6. The total dominance of the top 5 plants was 18.45. So the weeds dominated. The importance value pretty much followed suit, the weeds dominating.

            In 2006, the highest-ranked plant in dominance was the same as the year before with a dominance of 24.19. The highest ranked weed was crabgrass AGAIN, with a dominance going down from last year to only 28.54, but still more than Big Bluestem. The total dominance of the top 5 weeds was 46.3. The total dominance of the top 5 plants was 49.02. So the weeds‘ reign falls. Barely. The importance value pretty much followed suit, the plants just winning by a hair.

            So that’s the past. Now for the future. It seems that the weeds will forever be there, but will, over the long run, eventually just keep going up, then down, then up… The plants will just keep going up, as shown , up and down, but will keep on track. Sooner or later, however, the prairie plants will prevail over weeds because they are more accustomed to the weather conditions. So that’s prediction.

PART 4: REFLECTION!

            Why do they name them so obvious?!?! Oh, who cares. It’s easier for me. Less work.

            Well, I learned a lot. First is that prairies are more than giant pieces of grass. Second is that it takes a lot of work to maintain one. Third is that people name things to obviously. Fourth is that a field trip can be work, boredom, fun, play, and helpfulness all in one. Fifth is that a comparative analysis is long and boring to write, but you have an excuse to listen to Green Day off of the beta version of Windows Media Player. Sweet. Well, I guess I didn’t learn as much as I thought. Hmm… anyway, I have social studies to work on. This is Shawn (omitted), signing off.

 

COPYRIGHT:  top links

© 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.