Initially I was going off purely visual estimation to determine percent cover of weeds for each of my study areas, but I have recently begun using a 40×40cm. quadrat and it is more difficult than I imagined to get an accurate determination. The relatively heavy rain last weed facilitated plenty of new growth in some of the areas, with countless tiny weeds spouting up that make it tricky to gauge just how much of the quadrat has weeds within it. Currently I have 8 logs in my field book, so if I consider a replicate a measurement of all of the areas, I will have taken 24 replicates in total, 8 for each area. However, if it is more accurate to define a replicate as measurements taken using the quadrat that I obtained recently, that number will be higher. Since a quadrat was not used for the majority of my study, I’m not sure if I should count those individual smaller measurements as replicates, so I would be interested to hear feedback on that. I have noticed that the sunniest area currently experienced the highest weed growth by far, but as a majority of that has happened since the few days of rain, I’m not sure that can be attributed solely to sun. Despite being covered by a Douglas Fir, the shaded areas still did receive a fair amount of rain based on the moistness of the soil. Although shade levels are my primary independent variable, it is likely that there needs to be a combination of factors working in tandem for weeds to grow.