DISCUSSIONS: The experiment conducted required the data such as length, width and weight of leaves were measured

and the mean, variance and standard deviation were calculated from all the data acquired. Based on the data, the mean length, mean width and mean weight were almost similar for all the sets. The sample of leaves came from the same species and the same tree, thus explaining the similarities. However, they also show variation among species making the value of each sample not the exact copy of each other. The variances calculated from the data of leaves length were not so close to each other. That indicated that the sample in each sets varies from each other in different scale from each other. And the fact was the same when it came to the standard deviation. Since variance is a measure of dispersion of data from the mean and standard deviation is the measure of the variability of data measured in a sample, when their values were larger, the samples in the sets were also having more variation. Even though the samples were taken from the same species and the exact same tree, they were not the exact copy from each other. For example, the leaves in Set 1 have mean length, mean width and mean weight larger than the leaves in Set 2. Some of the reasons could be their ability to fight for sources among the same tree. For example, the leaves in Set 1 is on the outer and higher part of the tree can get better access to sunlight thus making them larger than the leaves in Set 2. On the other hand, the mean length, mean width and mean weight plant of leaves in Set 3 are larger than Set 4. Set 3 have leaves on the lower part of the trees than Set 4 as they were closer to the ground, so the nutrients can be absorbed faster and easier. The age of the leaves may differ from each other thus the more juvenile leaves such as in Set 5 can be smaller and lighter than the more mature leaves such as the leaves in Set 1. The experiment also required some correlation analysis to be done. This type of analysis requires variables and the objective was to see the way a variable change when another is varied. In this experiment, the variables that were taken into consideration for the analysis were the length and width of sample. When a graph was plotted to show the correlation between the width and length, a linear graph was obtained. Linear graph indicated that the correlation was a positive. When the length of the leaf was higher, the width of the leaf was also high. This applied to most of the samples. When the leaves were longer, than the nutrients it absorbed to make such length must be more, thus making the width also grew as well. The logic to this correlation was that, when the lengths of leaves were longer that it would be more balanced to have wider width. The range of data in each set were small that agrees with the small distribution from the mean. In Set 1, the range of leaves length, width and weight were 1.4cm, 1.3cm and 0.32g respectively. In Set 2, the range of leaves length, width and weight were 1.2cm, 0.7cmd 0.13respectively. The range of leaves length, width and weight in Set 3 were 1.5cm, 1.7cm and 0.25g respectively. The range of leaves length, width and weight in Set 4 were 1.1cm, 1.1cm and 0.21g respectively. In Set 5, the range of leaves length, width and weight were 2.0cm, 1.2cm and 0.29g respectively. The experiment was conducted carefully to avoid as many errors as possible. However, one of the errors that can be reduced to get more accurate data was to get more than one reading on the width and calculate the average. Since the shape of the leaves were uneven, the widest part of the leaves was not easy to detect. Thus, taking the average reading would increase the accuracy. Besides, there was also parallax error that occurred when taking the measurements as the eye was not parallel to the point of measurements. Since each set were measured by different people, this was the hardest error to avoid as the method was different relatively from one to

another. The ruler used during the experiment was not the same for every set, thus can add to systematic error. The age of the samples taken were supposed to be the same from each other but it was impossible to determine, so, the leaves were chosen based on color similarities among each other.

CONCLUSIONS: As a conclusion, the leaves on a tree have varies that makes them a little different from each other but still in an acceptable close range of differences. This was achieved by calculating the mean, variance and standard deviation. The width and the length of the leaves were in positive correlation between each other. As the widths were larger, the lengths were longer. The objectives of the experiment were met.