Overall, I am pleased with the initial data analysis. As a former engineering student, Excel took a minute to dust off, but data entry and table organization went well. Color-coding cells and making notes using text boxes helps (it is good to think of Excel as a “rough draft,” as readers will only ever see the Word document or PDF).
For initial data presentation, I focused on four products based on field observations. Two were meant to isolate the effects of environmental effects: average percent shading throughout the sampling period, and a slope comparison, between burn pile and control sites. The other two were the stipe counts along transects: relative maidenhair density compared to sword-fern, and maidenhair density as a function of distance in extended (10m) burn pile transects.
For data analysis, I applied simple standard error bars to the chart and graph for Assignment 5. Before the final report, I would like to review how Excel calculates standard error (it has been a while since I have studied statistics). While they are somewhat sizeable error bars due to limited sampling time and few piles for analysis, in two of the sites the bars did not overlap. In this regard, the relative density of maidenhair can likely be attributed to burn pile proximity – perhaps confirming the hypothesis of this study.
One somewhat unexpected (although certainly considered) result came about when reviewing the average percent shading to the two species’ density at each of the three sites. This could be an opportunity for a fifth product in the results section of the report (one with both sets of data presented in the same chart). It appears that shading also influences the vigor of sword-fern, with shadier sites having lower maidenhair counts. That said, there are a few instances where maidenhair likely still prefers burn pile transects, even with varying shading – they will be explained in the final report.