As promised, I took the camera to the corn field to record the progress of the decomposition there. As you can see from the photo, things look a little different now than they did at the time of our first decomposition report.
The field was tilled just a few days after our first report, so the stalks have been laying as you see them here for about five months now. Decomposition is a little harder to measure than growth, especially when you can't find the same stalk as the one you looked at the first time. I'm sure there are plenty of good things going on beneath the surface where earthworms are busy making the black dirt even richer. Soon, Farmer Wagenbach will be back in the field planting something that we'll just have to measure.
An unwelcome sign of warm weather is this dandelion sprouting from a seam in the concrete. I don't think we'll measure this pesky plant, but I do anticipate an opportunity to do a Roundup experiment! Thanks for visiting!
>>Decomposition is a little harder to measure than growth, especially when you can't find the same stalk as the one you looked at the first time.<<
ReplyDeleteAre you saying, therefore, that you can actually remember which corn stalk you measured every time you post a C.I.T.B.Y. update?
So glad to see you are continuing to do your best to deserve your award. *cough*
Kathryn: Of course I measure the same corn stalk every week, it wouldn't be scientific if I didn't. People may call us many things, but they can't call us unscientific.
ReplyDelete"People may call us many things, but they can't call us unscientific."
ReplyDeletewell.. in order to better adhere to the scientific method, it actually would be more accurate to take a larger sampling and then give an average, sorta like what should've been done in the environmental tree ring scandal that occurred over in Russia a little while back...
And no... I'm not calling ya'll unscientific.. just saying there's a more scientific way to do it...
;-)
Emil: I think you're calling us unscientific.
ReplyDeleteSample size is really a function of what you're trying to learn from the data. If you're trying to figure out how far the front of your car crumples when you hit a tree, you may have to be content with one sample. Likewise, when you're trying to estimate the growth of a cornfield where every stalk looks pretty much like the next one, I would argue that one sample is sufficient. Some people I know might say it's one sample too many....
"Emil: I think you're calling us unscientific."
ReplyDeleteIs one sampling enough to determine this?
I'm kidding.. I'm kidding.. :-)
I had to get ya'll back in some way after that whole hoddie (er.. hooded sweatshirt) thing.. ;-)
Well gracious me! I'm offline for a few weeks and you go posting gripping stuff like this in my absence!
ReplyDeleteI can see I've got a lot of catchin' up to do;)
Diane -- Welcome back. You were missed.
ReplyDelete