In creating graphs and tables I saw visually represented what I already had found in my study. I surveyed 3 zones and 20 quadrants looking for a relationship between chokecherry and lesser burdock. What my study basically found was that the relationship looks coincidental (though I will be unpacking that in the report) as only one of the 3 zones had burdock and chokecherry together. Choke cherry is incredibly prevalent across all zones, all within the riparian area in pincher creek, but the burdock seemed to only be in zone 3. I based my hypothesis on my initial data which was all collected in zone 3. Wanting to see if the relationship continued up stream I separated my zones by bridges in town. Although I did not find burdock in the other zones further observations that are not in my data have found burdock prevalent through town farther away from the riparian zone. As I am reading I’ve learned a lot about burdock as an invasive plant but I haven’t yet sorted out how this relates to my data. I think this study raises more questions than it answers and seems to disprove my hypothesis.