FERMI QUADRAT PRAIRIE STUDY 2006

Back to Honors Biology Student List of Pages


GPS LOCATION: N: 41°, 50.486´    W: 88°, 16.401´

STUDENT RESEARCHER: Michael S.
Table of Contents
Data
 Data from Plot#17 2006 Data from Plot#17 2005
Graph of Dominance and Importance Values
 Graphs from 2006
 Graphs from 2005
Comparative Analysis
Copyright, Acknowledgement, and References



Back to the top menu

DATA:

Data from Quadrat 3345 2006

Name # of Quadrats Number Percent Covered  Dominance Frequency  Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency Relative Density   Importance Value Importance Value
Big Bluestem 1 7 10 10 0.2 7 8.00 10.00 0.25 18.24
Compass Plant 1 6 20 20 0.2 6 15.99 10.00 0.21 26.20
Mountain Mint 1 9 6 6 0.2 9 4.80 10.00 0.32 15.11
New England Aster 1 5 4 4 0.2 5 3.20 10.00 0.18 13.37
Saw-toothed Sunflower 1 4 15 15 0.2 4 12.00 10.00 0.14 22.14
Yellow Coneflower 1 1 1 1 0.2 1 0.80 10.00 0.04 10.83
Hairy Aster 1 4 3 3 0.2 4 2.40 10.00 0.14 12.54
Sweet Clovers 1 13 9 9 0.2 13 7.20 10.00 0.46 17.65
Stiff Goldenrod 1 5 4 4 0.2 5 3.20 10.00 0.18 13.37
Unlisted grasslike 1 2800 28 28 0.2 2800 22.39 10.00 98.11 130.50
total 2854 100 100 2 2854 79.97 100.00 100.00 279.9

Back to the top menu

Data from Plot#17 2006

Native Prairie Plants
Plant Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Relative Dominance Importance Value
Big Bluestem 618 156 4 123.6 0.8 31.2 86.31 19.05 49.37 154.73
Stiff Goldenrod 5 4 1 1 0.2 0.8 0.7 4.76 1.27 6.73
Compass Plant 23 37 2 4.6 0.4 7.4 3.21 9.52 11.71 24.45
Switch Grass 2 9 1 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.28 4.76 2.85 7.89
Prairie Dock 4 28 1 0.8 0.2 5.6 0.56 4.76 8.86 14.18
Rosinweed 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.14 4.76 0.32 5.22
Yellow Coneflower 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.14 4.76 0.32 5.22
Tall Coreopsis 5 3 1 1 0.2 0.6 0.7 4.76 0.95 6.41
Saw- tooth Sunflower 4 15 1 0.8 0.2 3 0.56 4.76 4.75 10.07
Wild Bergamot 16 16 2 3.2 0.4 3.2 2.23 9.52 5.06 16.82
Mountain Mint 9 6 1 1.8 0.2 1.2 1.26 4.76 1.9 7.92
New England Aster 7 10 3 1.4 0.6 2 0.98 14.29 3.17 18.43
White Prairie Clover 21 30 2 4.2 0.4 6 2.93 9.52 9.49 21.95
Weeds Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Relative Dominance Importance Value
Sweet Clovers (tall) 212 90 4 42.4 0.8 18 31.93 36.36 54.55 122.84
Tall goldenrod 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.15 9.09 0.61 9.85
Hairy Aster 6 7 2 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.9 18.18 4.24 23.33
Dandelion 13 5 1 2.6 0.2 1 1.96 9.09 3.03 14.08
Unlisted-Grasslike 432 62 3 86.4 0.6 12.4 65.06 27.27 37.58 129.91

 

Back to the top menu

Data from Plot#17 2005 

RAW DATA
Plant Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Relative Dominance Importance Value
Big Bluestem 6301 232 12 118.89 0.23 4.38 49.73 8.39 12.29 70.41
Indian Grass 3018 162 7 56.94 0.13 3.06 23.82 4.89 8.58 37.3
Wild Bergamot 166 224 21 3.13 0.4 4.23 1.31 14.69 11.86 27.86
Prairie Cord Grass 1967 159 2 37.11 0.04 3 15.53 1.4 8.42 25.35
Stiff Goldenrod 189 201 11 3.57 0.21 3.79 1.49 7.69 10.65 19.83
Rosinweed 264 150 13 4.98 0.25 2.83 2.08 9.09 7.95 19.12
Yellow Coneflower 195 154 11 3.68 0.21 2.91 1.54 7.69 8.16 17.39
Compass Plant 64 152 12 1.21 0.23 2.87 0.51 8.39 8.05 16.95
Tall Coreopsis 66 110 12 1.25 0.23 2.08 0.52 8.39 5.83 14.74
Mountain Mint 158 83 7 2.98 0.13 1.57 1.25 4.89 4.4 10.54
Foxglove Beard Tongue 154 88 5 2.91 0.09 1.66 1.22 3.5 4.66 9.37
Prairie Dock 28 34 9 0.53 0.17 0.64 0.22 6.29 1.8 8.32
Switch Grass 39 40 5 0.74 0.09 0.76 0.31 3.5 2.12 5.92
Saw-tooth Sunflower 19 36 5 0.36 0.09 0.68 0.15 3.5 1.91 5.55
New England Aster 8 11 3 0.15 0.06 0.21 0.06 2.1 0.58 2.74
Black-eyed Susan 12 10 3 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.1 2.1 0.53 2.72
Rattlesnake Master 6 16 1 0.11 0.02 0.3 0.05 0.7 0.85 1.59
Wild Quinine 4 12 1 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.7 0.64 1.37
Tall Boneset 10 7 1 0.19 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.7 0.37 1.15
White Wild Indigo 1 6 1 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.7 0.32 1.02
Dense Blazing Star 1 1 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.7 0.05 0.76
WEEDS
Plant Total Plants Found Total Percentage Found # of Quadrats Found In Density Frequency Dominance Relative Density Relative Frequency Relative Dominance Importance Value
Unlisted-Grasslike 84310 2258 38 1590.75 0.72 42.6 97.24 21.71 53.22 172.17
Tall goldenrod 1065 1077 38 20.09 0.72 20.32 1.23 21.71 25.38 48.33
Unlisted-Oval leaf 517 253 20 9.75 0.38 4.77 0.6 11.43 5.96 17.99
Wild Carrot 66 62 13 1.25 0.25 1.17 0.08 7.43 1.46 8.97
Clovers (ground) 389 85 11 7.34 0.21 1.6 0.45 6.29 2 8.74
Yarrow 69 63 12 1.3 0.23 1.19 0.08 6.86 1.48 8.42
Unlisted-Triangular Pointed Leaf 104 71 11 1.96 0.21 1.34 0.12 6.29 1.67 8.08
Sweet Clovers (tall) 34 139 8 0.64 0.15 2.62 0.04 4.57 3.28 7.89
Drummonds Aster 68 77 8 1.28 0.15 1.45 0.08 4.57 1.81 6.46
Common Milkweed 10 124 6 0.19 0.11 2.34 0.01 3.43 2.92 6.36
Unlisted-Round leaf 52 16 3 0.98 0.06 0.3 0.06 1.71 0.38 2.15
Hairy Vetch 6 7 2 0.11 0.04 0.13 0.01 1.14 0.16 1.31
Thistle 7 6 2 0.13 0.04 0.11 0.01 1.14 0.14 1.29
Hairy Aster 3 3 2 0.06 0.04 0.06 0 1.14 0.07 1.22
Daisy Fleabane 3 2 1 0.06 0.02 0.04 0 0.57 0.05 0.62

Back to the top menu

Table of our Fermi Quadrat

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to the top menu

GRAPHS OF DOMINANCE AND IMPORTANCE VALUE:

 

Back to the top menu

Graphs from 2006

Back to the top menu

Graphs from 2005

Back to the top menu

 

 

 

Back to the top menu

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

 

Background Information

  1. Dominance is the measure of the average percent of space a plant occupies in every quadrat it inhabits. It is used to compare the plants which occupy the most space in given quadrats, whether they are different ones or the same quadrat at different times. Importance is the values of relative dominance, relative density, and relative frequency added together. This data is used to determine the overall importance of the individual species to the ecosystem and rank the species. Diversity is the value determined by dividing the total number of species involved in a study divided by the total number of quadrats studied. This value is used to compare the overall health of quadrats.

 

Comparison

  1.  In terms of diversity, the data from the 2005, 2006, and our study are very different. The diversity of plot 17 in 2005 was .94. This year, the overall diversity was 4.8; however, the diversity of the quadrat I shared with Laquita is 10, much higher than the diversities of either plot. In dominance rankings, there is an even larger difference between the studies. In 2005, weeds easily have more than twice the dominance of the native plants with the big bluestem, most dominant native, having 4.38, and the unlisted grasslike, most dominant weed, having 42.60. This year, however, the big bluestem, most dominant native again, has 31.2, while the sweet clover, the new most dominant weed, has 18. The tables have completely turned. For some reason, though, the data from my quadrat leans towards the 2005 data with the compass plant, most dominant native, having 20 and unlisted grasslike having 28. The results in importance are very similar to the results in dominance. In 2005, weeds are much more important, with unlisted grasslike having 172.17 and big bluestem having 70.41. This year, big bluestem had 154.73 and sweet clovers had 129.91.  In my quadrat, unlisted grasslike had an importance of 130.50 and the compass plant had 26.20. These results favor the weeds even more than the results of the whole plot from 2005.

Prediction

  1. Based on the results of the studies of Plot 17 from 2004, 2005, and 2006 as well as the study of Plot 16 from 1992, I would say that in 2016, the native plant population will have less overall diversity, but will be much larger and almost, if not entirely replace the weeds. To support this, there were 23 native plant species and 18 weed species with the weeds having a significant dominance over natives. In 2005, there were 21 natives and 15 weeds and weeds dropping in dominance and natives’ dominance dropping drastically. This year, there were 13 natives and 5 weeds with natives gaining main dominance and weeds dropping even more. At this rate, in 2016, natives will regain complete control of the plot with the big bluestem, compass plant, white prairie clover, and prairie dock controlling the majority and the unlisted grasslike will more than likely represent weeds entirely by itself.

Reflection

  1. From this activity I have learned a lot about prairies and nature in general. First of all, I have learned quite a bit about the various species and families of plants that inhabit prairies. From the rough leaves and sunlight-based leaf arrangement of the prairie dock and compass plant to the sharp leaves of the rip cord grass to the deep roots that most native prairie plants have, I have learned a bit more about how plants adapt to survive in the world. I’ve gained more information on how radically man has changed the environment around the world, as well as an understanding of what Illinois should look like. Moreover, I have learned of another area of the world I like to explore. Most surprising and important of all, I now realize how fast native plants can regain their lost habitats if given help from humans. Overall, this study of prairies has reinforced my belief in restoring nature to its former self so man and the rest of nature can coexist.   

 

 

Back to the top men

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 Honors Biology ll  students of Seton Academy in South Holland, Illinois with the help of their teacher Mr. Cwik. Support for the project came from Principal Ms. Ingia Jackson and the other dedicated and cooperative faculty and staff of Seton Academy.

 

REFERENCES:
Fermi lab Education Department particularly the SIMply Prairie Project. Authors: Bill Fraccaro, formerly of Johnson School, Wheaton, IL; Lawrence Cwik, Seton Academy and Pat Franzen, formerly Madison Jr. High Naperville, IL; and Bernie Jokiel, formerly from Gary D, Jewel Middle School, North Aurora, IL.
Created for the NTEP II Fermi lab LInC program sponsored by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office and Friends of Fermi lab, 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.
 

Back to the top menu