Selection of Site of Study

The research began with the location of Trout Lake as a study point for the Pennsylvania sedge project and its development over time. The shot, taken in May 2013, depicted the presence of ice on the lake, indicating a cold environment that inhibits sugar maple leafing. Cones on white pine and pine trees, on the other hand, have seen growth. On closer inspection, white pines seem to be on the outskirts of the Peninsula. Plant growth was not visible on the peninsula’s inner edges, and there were only a few sparse tree patches. The middle of the Peninsula is seen to be inhabited with trees lacking leaves. It required a lot of effort to comfortably say whether the green is Penn sedge or white pine. Nonetheless, according to the instructor, they are white pine.

The plot of the study had a slight extension to 4” south to north and 2.5” west from east. The plan of the study extends northwards not so much but just to join with Trout Lake. It would be futile to undertake research for white pine and sugar maple trees growth in the lake since they don’t have a potential of growth in the region. The species, in addition, will also be affected in the short and long run. The species that would have been obtained from the lake are those that are water inhabitants. The species that are given much of attention are those that are natives of sugar maple and white pine. Another factor is the soil condition as Penn sedge is unable to survive in moist soils example of a swampy area (Barry 105). Road construction is another factor which limited the plot area under study since there is the interruption of path and safety of species reducing species population.

Results

A table and a graph chart were used in organizing my data so as to facilitate proper understanding and comprehension of the data. I at the beginning arranged the percentage of the Pennsylvania sedge in ascending order from low to high. A 100% formed the standard of ratings which made it very easy to split it into groups of four i.e. 0 to 25%, 26 to 50%, 51 to 75% and finally 76 to 100%. The average of each category was then calculated by summing up all the numbers per column and dividing it by the given data points. The average number of sugar maple, species for each quadrant and white pine was calculated. To ease the analysis of the date, a chart showing numerical for each data was organized. The chart allowed a simplified comparison of each type of tree and the different numbers of species related to a determined portion of the Pennsylvania sedge. It followed that with 0 to 25% presence of Pennsylvania sedge, the average number of sugar maple and white pine are 0.647 and 0.654 in that order. The total number of present species was 5.045. The second quadrant, 26-50%, Pennsylvania coverage, there was an average increase in the number of white pine to 0.769. Sugar maple, on the other hand, decreased to 0.0769. A number of species had a slight increase to 5.15 but didn’t surpass 5. The third quadrant 51-75% of Pennsylvania sedge, there was an increase in the number of white pine to 0.867 while sugar maple as well increased to 0.2. For the upper quadrant of Pennsylvania coverage white pine reduced to 0.5, sugar maple consequently reduced to 0.179 decreasing the average number of species.

seedling

0-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-100%

Sugar Maple

86

2

2

5

Species

670

72

77

139

White Pine

88

9

13

12

Conclusion and Discussion

Analysis of the data concluded my research to try and determine if hypothesis A, hypothesis B and hypothesis C can get some support by the provided information. I found out that hypothesis A and B got much support but Hypothesis C lacked clear support. My own hypothesis would therefore say sedge cover and species richness are decreased by different weather conditions.

Works Cited

Crawford, James. Scotland’s Landscapes: The National Collection of Aerial Photography. RCAHMS, 2012.

Tomlinson, P. Barry. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, 2016.