Plant abundance in relation to distance from water

Anonymous
timer Asked: Dec 18th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $15

Question description

i need one paper double space just a discussion about this power point

should be include the following:

Interpret your results. What do your data tell you? How do your results relate to your original question? Were your hypotheses supported? (Remember that a hypothesis can’t be “right,” “true,” or “proved;” it can only be supported). If not, why do you think you obtained results that differed from your expectations? Do your conclusions match what others have found in related studies? Be careful that your claims are justified and supported by the data and your analyses. Relate what you found to broader ecological concepts (the larger picture). This is the part of your paper where you tie everything together and where people have the hardest time writing the manuscript. You will be graded on this point so THINK HARD! You also should discuss any problems in the technique you used or unexpected errors that could have affected the outcome. If you feel that these may have affected your results, suggest improvements. Finally, pose new questions that have arisen because of this research and give suggestions for further research based on your findings.

Plant abundance in relation to distance from water By: Danielle, Jason, and Yusur Introduction ● ● ● ● Effect of a water source on plant populations Plant community experiment Observe abundance and distribution patterns Measure the influence of a water source on: ○ ○ ○ ○ Species abundance Root type Annual or Perennial Shrub vs. Non-shrub Introduction ● ● ● ● Old mission dam Located in Mission Trails Regional Park Water source comes from the San Diego River River flows through park Methodology ● 5 study sites ○ ○ At every site, 3 quadrats 15 total quadrats ● Quadrats ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Each quadrat was 5x20 meters Set up at 0, 50, and 100 meters away from water Measured using a measuring tape Marked using wood landscape stake Tied string around stakes ● Each quadrat was observed and recorded Methodology Conducted field observations on November, 17th ● Data collected consisted of: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Distance from water Species identification Species abundance Root type Annual or perennial Shrub vs non-shrub ● Identifies species using: ○ ○ Online database (iNaturalist) Plant manuals and pamphlets Results:Abundance of species (0 meters from water) Six species present: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Baccharis saliciflia Amrbiosa Psilostachva Desert Broom Narrowleaf willow Sweet fennel Deer Grass Average count per plot: 17.8 Results: Abundance of species (50 meters from water) Seven species present: 1. Desert Broom 2. Southern Russian Thistle 3. Amrbiosa Psilostachva 4. Western Sycamore 5. Coyote Brush 6. Deer Grass 7. Adenostoma fasciculatum Average count per plot: 16.2 Results: Abundance of species (100 meters from water) Nine species present: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Southern Russian thistle California bricklebush Catchweed bedstraw Western Sycamore Coast live Oak Desert broom California scrub Oak Engelmann Oak Baccharis saliciflia Average count per plot: 13.7 Discussion: Abundance of species 15 total species observed ● ● ● (0 meters): Lowest species total, highest observations total (50 meters): Median species total, median observations total (100 meters): Highest species total, lowest observations total Results: Abundance of Annual vs. Perennial species ● ● ● Zero species of annual plants were observed on the shore line Annual species were more abundant than perennial species in the 50 and 100 meter plots The abundance of perennial species appears to be negatively affected by the distance from the shore line ○ But, did the data test yield statistically significant results? Anova Test/Discussion: Abundance of Perennial species ● Did the data test yield statistically significant results?? ○ ○ ○ ● (P-value=0.063) α: 0.05 P-value>α Almost! However, the varying mean abundance observed in perennial species at different distances from the shore line was ultimately proven not statistically significant Dependent Variable N Multiple R Squared Multiple R ¦ ABUNDANCE ¦ ¦ ¦ 0.135 41 0.368 Analysis of Variance Source ¦ Type III SS df Mean Squares F-Ratio pValue ---------------------+---------------------------------------------------DISTANCE_FROM_SHORE$ ¦ 39.991 2 19.995 2.967 0.063 Error ¦ 256.058 38 6.738 Results: Abundance of Root Types ● ● ● ● Plant species with basal-shoot systems were only observed along the shore line Plant species with tap and lateral root systems were only observed 100 meters from the shore line Plant species with fibrous root systems were only observed within about 50 meters of the shore line The abundance of plant species with tap roots appears to be negatively affected by the distance from the shore line ○ But, did the data test yield statistically significant results? Anova Test/Discussion: Abundance of Tap Roots ● Did the data test yield statistically significant results?? ○ ○ ○ ● (P-value=0.064) α: 0.05 P-value>α Almost! However, the varying mean abundance observed in species with tap roots at different distances from the shore line was ultimately proven not statistically significant Dependent Variable N Multiple R Squared Multiple R ¦ ABUNDANCE ¦ ¦ ¦ 0.184 30 0.429 Analysis of Variance Source ¦ Type III SS df Mean Squares F-Ratio p-Value ---------------------+---------------------------------------------------DISTANCE_FROM_SHORE$ ¦ 27.940 2 13.970 3.044 0.064 Error ¦ 123.926 27 4.590 Results: Abundance of Shrub vs. non-shrub species ● ● ● Shrub and non-shrub species are very similar in abundance Both shrub and non-shrub species are most abundant along the shore line The abundance of both shrub and non-shrub species appears to be impacted by the distance from the shore line ○ But, did the data tests yield statistically significant results? Anova Test/Discussion : Abundance of Shrub vs. non-shrub species Shrubs ○ ○ ○ Non-Shrubs (P-value=0.334) α: 0.05 P-value>>α Dependent Variable N ¦ Multiple R ¦ Squared Multiple R ¦ ABUNDANCE ¦ 21 0.339 0.115 ○ ○ ○ (P-value=0.200) α: 0.05 P-value>>α Dependent Variable N ¦ Multiple R ¦ Squared Multiple R ¦ ABUNDANCE 25 0.369 ¦ 0.136 Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Source ¦ Type III SS df Mean Squares F-Ratio p-Value ---------------------+--------------------------------------------------DISTANCE_FROM_SHORE$ ¦ 14.381 2 7.190 1.168 0.334 Error ¦ 110.857 18 Source ¦ Type III SS df Mean Squares FRatio p-Value ---------------------+---------------------------------------------------DISTANCE_FROM_SHORE$ ¦ 24.250 2 12.125 1.735 0.200 Error ¦ 153.750 22 6.159 ● 6.989 The differences in the mean abundance for each distance from the shore line are not statistically significant for both shrub species and non-shrub species Conclusion ● ● Purpose was to observe plant abundance in relation to distance from water We found that: ○ Species abundance decreased with distance ○ Species diversity increased with distance ○ Rest of tests were not statistically significant Further studies ● ● ● ● Different Locations Different sources of water (Marine Vs. Freshwater) More quadrants Different distance levels (other than 0, 50 and 100 meters)

Tutor Answer

agneta
School: Cornell University

Attached.

Running head: PLANT ABUNDANCE IN RELATION TO DISTANCE FROM WATER

Plant Abundance in Relation to Distance from Water

Institution Affiliation

Date

1

PLANT ABUNDANCE IN RELATION TO DISTANCE FROM WATER
Plant Abundance in Relation to Distance from Water

Upon conducting the study on plant abundance in relation to distance from water, my
data tells me that various species of plants are affected differently. Data shows that accurate
measurement, observation, and recording are required for one to achieve the best results for the
study. Considering that I was thorough in measuring, observing, and recording, this makes the
results relate to my original question. The reason is that they provide detailed facts of the several
aspects that cont...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Tutor went the extra mile to help me with this essay. Citations were a bit shaky but I appreciated how well he handled APA styles and how ok he was to change them even though I didnt specify. Got a B+ which is believable and acceptable.

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors