Transcript leafdata - rogers

Dependence of leaf surface
area on distance from river
and forest layer
yawn
What We Teach
• Plants under canopy have to have big
leaves to pick up sunlight
• Forest floor not densely populated: same
reason
What We Saw
• More ground cover than
expected
• Ground cover had
exceptionally small leaves
• Did this trend hold farther
from fragmenting?
Original Question
• Does the surface area of the leaves of the
different layers change depending on how
far from fragmentation the sample is
taken?
Problems
Problems… Really
• Nowhere was really “far” from human
civilization or fragmentation.
• Evidence of manipulation – paths,
obviously piled debris
• CHANGE question – is there a difference
farther from the river?
Hypothesis
• Surface area of leaves in layers of forest is
dependent on height of plant and distance
from river
1
2
3
4
Location 1
Location 3
Methodology
•
•
•
•
Find location for “capture”
Photograph location
Choose sample/samples for each layer
Measure general dimensions
(length/width) of leaves
• Photograph this capture
• Note any other data that seems
relevant/interesting (repeat of plants,
obvious difference in composition)
Methodology
Location 1 – closest to river
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4 – farthest from river
Trends we noticed
• Ground cover – low level – had very small
leaves
• Middle layer – underbrush – had on
average largest leaves
• Canopy tended to small leaves
• Could we look at these layers by distance
from river?
Ground Cover
Shrub - understory
Canopy
Conclusions
• Distance from river seemed to make a
difference in plant type and forest height
(that we could not measure)
• This seemed to affect ground cover more
than other layers
Lessons – further questions
• Data Data Data!!!
• Actually factor in or describe the shape of
leaves (instead of just length x width)
• More specific in layer definition or actually
measure the height of each plant