Descriptive statistics were employed as demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, where there is no significant difference between the two sites as with a 95 % confidence level, site 1 has a value of 1.322752601 while site 2 has 1.342021037 . Furthermore, the minimum height of trees in the first site had slightly taller pine trees with a mean elevation of 10.93548387, while the other site had considerably shorter trees as denoted by the minimum mean height of 10.06451613. The mean height of the pine trees was collected from ten plots in each site, and the descriptive statistics further point to a standard error of 0.584730639 from the first site and 0.593248366 for the second site . From these statistical data, the null hypothesis is accepted as the confidence level is more than the significance level of 0.05.
|
Mean HGT (m) - Site 1 |
|
| Mean |
14.13516129 |
| Standard Error |
0.584730639 |
| Median |
14.96612903 |
| Mode |
#N/A |
| Standard Deviation |
1.849080637 |
| Sample Variance |
3.419099202 |
| Kurtosis |
-0.72573208 |
| Skewness |
-0.93896907 |
| Range |
5.264516129 |
| Minimum |
10.93548387 |
| Maximum |
16.2 |
| Sum |
141.3516129 |
| Count |
10 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) |
1.322752601 |
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
|
Mean HGT (m) - Site 2 |
|
| Mean |
13.1083871 |
| Standard Error |
0.593248366 |
| Median |
13.31935484 |
| Mode |
#N/A |
| Standard Deviation |
1.876016054 |
| Sample Variance |
3.519436235 |
| Kurtosis |
-1.3349812 |
| Skewness |
-0.47076036 |
| Range |
5.035483871 |
| Minimum |
10.06451613 |
| Maximum |
15.1 |
| Sum |
131.083871 |
| Count |
10 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) |
1.342021037 |
Further analysis of the trees per hectare, as represented by Tables 3 and 4, reveals that the two sites had a significant difference. For instance, from the significance level of 0.05, table 3 demonstrates a value of 123.9684, while table 4 shows a value of 369.1198 from a confidence level of 95%. Otherwise, the descriptive statistics indicate that the second site had more trees per hectare than the first site, as revealed in the mean tree per hectare. Moreover, site 2 had a maximum number of 2820 trees per plot compared to site one that had 1135.2. Similarly, the other site had a more significant standard error of 163.1716 compared to site one’s 123.9684. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis in this research as the confidence level is way above the alpha level of 0.05, as shown by site one that had 123.9684 while site 2 had 369.1198 .
|
TPH - Site 1 |
|
| Mean |
853.74 |
| Standard Error |
54.80097 |
| Median |
804.1 |
| Mode |
#N/A |
| Standard Deviation |
173.2959 |
| Sample Variance |
30031.47 |
| Kurtosis |
-0.72132 |
| Skewness |
0.673891 |
| Range |
513.2 |
| Minimum |
622 |
| Maximum |
1135.2 |
| Sum |
8537.4 |
| Count |
10 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) |
123.9684 |
|
TPH - Site 2 |
|
| Mean |
1472.44 |
| Standard Error |
163.1716 |
| Median |
1389.6 |
| Mode |
#N/A |
| Standard Deviation |
515.9939 |
| Sample Variance |
266249.7 |
| Kurtosis |
6.209296 |
| Skewness |
2.224528 |
| Range |
1920 |
| Minimum |
900 |
| Maximum |
2820 |
| Sum |
14724.4 |
| Count |
10 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) |
369.1198 |
From the evaluation of the canopy bulk density, figure 1 shows the density of trees within the first site being densely populated compared to site two that have a more widely spread density. From this analysis, it is evident that site one has the largest fire hazard as the trees are closely packed, which makes it easy for fires to spread. On the contrary, site 2 has a widely spaced tree density, which makes it easy to put off a forest fire and subsequently reduces the hazard of a forest fire. Additionally, figures 3 and 4 show the canopy base height where uniformity could be an indicator of a site that is more hazardous in case of fire outbreaks. Figure 3 shows the pine trees in the first site are approximately the same height, with the highest tree being 10.0552 meters while the shortest is 6.418476613 meters. Contrastingly, figure 4 indicates the highest pine to be 9.376464516 meters, while the shortest is 6.2602 meters. The data in Table 5 describes the basal area of the pine in both locations. Site 2 has more mature trees as they have a wider basal compared to site 1. Therefore, the first site was riskier when it catches fire as it will burn faster as they have smaller basal areas. For instance, the most extensive tree was 38.9 inches in diameter, while the thinnest was 26.1 inches. The other site had the most comprehensive tree at 46.8 inches, while the smallest was 24.5 inches in diameter. Thus, the results indicate that there is variation between the two sites as supported by the data analysis, and besides, the first site is the most substantial fire hazard of the two.
|
Site # |
TPH |
BA |
Available CFL (Kg/m2) |
Available CFL (T/hectare) |
Canopy Bulk Density |
Canopy Base Height |
|
1 |
1135.2 |
27.7 |
3.586181499 |
0.003945517 |
0.184231876 |
15.532775 |
|
1 |
996.0 |
26.1 |
3.256320025 |
0.003582603 |
0.164471122 |
14.5673 |
|
1 |
775.2 |
28.1 |
3.208775862 |
0.003530295 |
0.141262279 |
15.808625 |
|
1 |
1116.0 |
33.1 |
4.194041147 |
0.004614284 |
0.19369322 |
18.842975 |
|
1 |
732.0 |
34.0 |
3.73940416 |
0.004114092 |
0.144864429 |
19.394675 |
|
1 |
850.0 |
36.7 |
4.211566801 |
0.004633566 |
0.165463329 |
21.049775 |
|
1 |
722.0 |
31.9 |
3.517507533 |
0.003869962 |
0.140372282 |
18.138025 |
|
1 |
833.0 |
38.9 |
4.413931858 |
0.004856208 |
0.16649099 |
22.4137 |
|
1 |
622.0 |
26.5 |
2.826592543 |
0.003109817 |
0.118308923 |
14.8125 |
|
1 |
756.0 |
37.2 |
4.104543894 |
0.004515819 |
0.15299182 |
21.3716 |
|
Site # |
TPH |
BA |
Available CFL (Kg/m2) |
Available CFL (T/hectare) |
Canopy Bulk Density |
Canopy Base Height |
|
2 |
2820.0 |
41.6 |
7.020260159 |
0.00772369 |
0.405696701 |
24.127125 |
|
2 |
1375.2 |
37.4 |
5.018845461 |
0.005521734 |
0.234437606 |
21.50655 |
|
2 |
1440.0 |
46.8 |
6.25665179 |
0.006883568 |
0.262078421 |
27.2994 |
|
2 |
1644.0 |
32.4 |
4.677375045 |
0.005146048 |
0.253283049 |
18.4722 |
|
2 |
1111.2 |
27.5 |
3.534627164 |
0.003888797 |
0.180937792 |
15.43785 |
|
2 |
1404.0 |
36.0 |
4.886805543 |
0.005376463 |
0.23488069 |
20.679 |
|
2 |
1305.0 |
34.7 |
4.613281199 |
0.005075532 |
0.220137378 |
19.8821 |
|
2 |
1475.0 |
35.4 |
4.891622925 |
0.005381764 |
0.241842706 |
20.3112 |
|
2 |
1250.0 |
33.8 |
4.440717419 |
0.004885677 |
0.211550802 |
19.3304 |
|
2 |
900.0 |
24.5 |
2.973033491 |
0.003270931 |
0.149694249 |
13.6295 |
Since the plots within the second site are more sparsely populated as exemplified by figure 2, there is room for the cultivation of additional trees within the available spaces in between the pine. In evaluating the elements that impact heavily on the characteristics of fuel loading, the structure of the crown plays a significant role. Thus, mapping the vegetation is relevant as it will assist in making informed decisions regarding the control of future fires as well as the preservation of the environment through afforestation and reforestation exercises. Hence, critical that details such as the variation of the available canopy fuel loading between the two sites be monitored closely. For instance, the second site has a more open canopy for energy. Loading compared to the first site, as shown where the highest value is 7.02026015909498 kg/m 2 while the lowest value is 2.973033491 kg/m 2. Similarly, the available canopy fuel loading in tones per hectare has higher values in comparison to the first site.
