Biology Project

Aim: To compare species diversity of the field in areas under a tree and areas not under a tree Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in the species diversity of the field between the area under the tree and areas not under the tree. Method: Our independent variable was whether the area of field was under a tree or not under a tree. Our dependant variable was the species diversity in that area of the field. There were several biotic and abiotic factors that couldve affected our dependant variable. Abiotic factors are factors of which involve non living parts of the environment. These could be things such as light intensity, water availability and temperature, all of which can affect the rate at which various plants photosynthesise. Biotic factors are factors that involve living organisms. An example of one could be competition, which can be either interspecific or intraspecific. Interspecific is competition between members of different species for resources that aid survival. Intraspecific is competition between members of the same species for resources. When collecting data, we measured out a square grid 3 by 3 metres big using two tape measures. These two tape measures emulated an x and y axis. The units on the tape measures acted as co ordinates on which we could place our quadrats. We then used a calculator to generate random numbers. As the numbers generated on the calculator were only within the range of 0 to 1, we had to multiply our value by 300 in order to generate a number within the range of 1 to 300. This is a suitable range as there are 300 cm in three metres. We generated a total of two random numbers when producing a co ordinate. One for the y value and one for the x value. We then placed the quadrats corner on the randomly generated co ordinate. This was the area in which we measured the species diversity. We generated a new co ordinate every time we placed down the quadrat. In our experiment, that was three times in each condition (under the tree and not under the tree). Two separate sets of axis were made in both the area under the tree and area not under the tree. This is so that the co ordinate we produced coincided with only the area we were measuring diversity on. Basically, our grids only covered one type of area, under a tree or not under a tree, it did not span across both. This whole process was random sampling and is a good method to use as it reduces any sampling bias that could possibly result. We decided to carry out a number of 3 repeats as this was a sensible number to carry out in the allotted time and would still sufficiently allow us to identify any outliers. We decided to measure percentage cover in each quadrat. This is where we would see the total area one species covered in a square. If it had covered more than 50% of the square, we counted the whole square. We then took a total percentage cover for the whole quadrat. Table of Results: Under Tree (%) Grass Leaflets 64% 8% 60% 16% 56% 12% 4% Not Under Tree (%) 88% 92% 8% 96% 4%

Statistics: We had decided to use a statistical test to determine whether a significant difference was present between our results, in turn, allowing us to either accept or reject our null hypothesis. The statistical test we decided to use was the Chi Squared test. This is because our data was categorical and discontinuous, i.e area under the tree and area not under the tree. Chi Squared Test Under Tree (%) Grass Leaflets
64 8 64.6 7.4 60 16 68.2 7.8 56 12 61.0 7.0 88 4

Not Under Tree (%)

82.6 9.5 92 8 89.8 10.3 96 4 89.8 10.3

456 52 508

72

76

68

92

100

100

*Bold values indicate an observed value. Normal indicates expected values. Observed - Expected 64-64.6= 60-68.2= 56-61= 88-82.6= 92-89.9= 96-89.8 8-7.4= 16-7.8= 12-7= 4-9.5= 8-10.3= 4-10.3= (O-E)2 0.36 67.24 25 29.16 4.41 38.44 0.36 67.24 25 30.25 5.29 39.69 (O-E)2 / E (3sf) 0.00557 0.986 0.500 0.353 0.0491 0.428 0.0486 8.62 3.57 3.18 0.514 3.85

X2 = ((O-E)2 / E) X2= 0.00557 + 0.986+ 0.5 + 0.353 + 0.0491 + 0.428 + 0.0486 + 8.62 + 3.57 + 3.18 + 0.514 + 3.85 = 22.10427 Biologists tend to use a p value of 0.05. This means that there is a less than or equal to 5% chance that the results obtained are due to chance. I have worked out that my data has only 1 degree of freedom. My critical value is therefore 3.84. My value for X2 was 22.10427, and therefore exceeds my critical value. My results are therefore significant and I can reject my null hypothesis.