minance.Figure one has an R-squared value of 0.229, which suggest a relationship between absolute density of Hemlock to relative density of Hemlock, but hardly a significant one. Figure four is a better example of a relationship between absolute density and relative density. Here the R-squared value is 0.697. This suggests that the estimation of absolute density from relative density has more of a relationship to each other and therefore is a better estimator of absolute density from relative density, then that of absolute density from absolute dominance, but still not a solid, reliable method of estimating. Both cases seem to differ from each other enough to make it an unusable method of estimating.2.b.The relationships between absolute density and relative density and between absolute dominance and absolute density are weak due to the different arrays of measurements with the different species. The wider the range of measurements the more room there is for variation, which in turn, makes it harder to find relationshipsFigures one and two deal with the species, Hemlock. Hemlock had the largest ranges in all cases, absolute density (5-23), relative density (60-83.3) and absolute dominance (0.044-1.059). These figures had the lowest R-squares (1: 0.229, 2: 0.027) due to this high amount of varying measurements.The Hemlock was the most prevalent species, therefore having the widest range of measurements due to the simple abundance of trees, as well as the different DBH’s (diameter breast height). This information suggests that the higher abundance and dominance result in a lower relationship between different factors.The relationships between absolute density and absolute dominance, and relative density and absolute density of the black birch also support this conclusion. The range of measurement dealing with the black birch is much smaller then that dealing with Hemlock, resulting in a closer relationship between factors. As seen i...
