Out of all, the burned area showed a significant increase in longleaf pines, (Pinus Palustris) and a decrease in woody species, compared to the unburned area. In fact, it jumped from a frequency of 15 in the unburned area to a frequency of 50; which is two times that of the burned area (see figure 1). Compared to all other species of tree, Pinus Palustris experienced the most increase of frequency. Whereas, Pinus Clausa or sand pine, was only present in the burned area showing that it was a successional species. All other species of trees were more of a hardwood and were killed by the fire. Therefore, they are un-present or in small numbers in the burned area.Woody plants showed a significant decrease in the burned area compared to the unburned
…show more content…
Subcanopy, showed distances with a significant change being both significant in the F and T. The values of F and T are 1.04E-05 and 1.16E-05. The mean and StDev for subcanopy distance in the burned area is (11.71 ± 21) and for the unburned area is (3.74 ± 48). In addition, the burned area showed a significant increase in distance in canopy trees with most of them being longleaf pines and slash pine species. The P value was not significant in both the F and T, but significant in the T test. For the F test, it had a value of 0.055784, and the T test having a value of 0.006382. The mean and StDev for canopy distance in the burned area is (11.50 ± 54) and for the unburned area is (7.46 ± 27). However, when comparing all types of plants there is a greater increase in distance of plants. This is shown by the distance standard deviation of all plants which is shown in figure 6. From both Figure 7 and 8 we can see that the average DBH for all species remains relatively the same for both plots. For instance, Canopy Longleaf pine in light gray in both figures are within 10 cm of each other. The F test gave us a p value of 0 and the T test gave us a value of 0.097108. Therefore, the DBH is unchanged for both the unburned and
Subcanopy, showed distances with a significant change being both significant in the F and T. The values of F and T are 1.04E-05 and 1.16E-05. The mean and StDev for subcanopy distance in the burned area is (11.71 ± 21) and for the unburned area is (3.74 ± 48). In addition, the burned area showed a significant increase in distance in canopy trees with most of them being longleaf pines and slash pine species. The P value was not significant in both the F and T, but significant in the T test. For the F test, it had a value of 0.055784, and the T test having a value of 0.006382. The mean and StDev for canopy distance in the burned area is (11.50 ± 54) and for the unburned area is (7.46 ± 27). However, when comparing all types of plants there is a greater increase in distance of plants. This is shown by the distance standard deviation of all plants which is shown in figure 6. From both Figure 7 and 8 we can see that the average DBH for all species remains relatively the same for both plots. For instance, Canopy Longleaf pine in light gray in both figures are within 10 cm of each other. The F test gave us a p value of 0 and the T test gave us a value of 0.097108. Therefore, the DBH is unchanged for both the unburned and