Limitations of our study:
 

• When cutting the cookies and sawing the logs in half for transport from the field to the lab, some of the sawdust blew away. For this reason, we decided to factor in saw kerf (1/4" per cut) rather than collecting a random quantity of saw dust.
• Exact diameter measurements were difficult to obtain. Despite the high degree of care, the decomposing bark crumbled when touched. Therefore, our diameter measurements may be inaccurately small.
• The delicate nature of our sample was also reflected in the bark sampling. When cutting the  cookies, the bark shredded from both sides of the cut. Therefore, we estimated the quantity of bark that may have actually come from the cookie, versus that from the main log, and collected the estimated quantity.
• Length measurements were also problematic due to the degree of decomposition of some of the logs. The smaller logs may appear shorter than they actually were.
• The rate of decomposition was not necessarily consistent among the logs. Some logs seemed to be more rotten because they crumbled more readily. For example, one end of log #5 was so rotten that we took the diameter measurement 17 cm in from the end (were the circumference appeared complete).
• The inexperience of the researchers ("That's why this class is called METHODS of Ecosystem Analysis. It's not called Results." -- Our Fearful Leader) may have inflenced the accuaracy level. Problems were thought of as they arose (and not necessarily in a linear manner).
• We used cheap paper bags to hold our samples. The adhesive holding several bags together started to loose its stickiness in the oven. Thus, we may have lost some of the sample mass in the processes of weighing them.