To summarize my results I have decided to show my graph describing the relationship between barnacle density at each of my different treatment sites: +Sea Wall; +Drainage (n=20), -Sea Wall; +Drainage (n=14), and -Sea Wall; -Drainage (n=24).
I did not have any difficulties organizing, aggregating or summarizing my data. However, I did have some challenges deciding how to represent it. I ended up making a multitude of graphs because I was unable to decide which way to represent the data (Figure. 1-4). I ended up making graphs for total abundance at each site, average abundance at each site, total density at each site and average density at each site. I also made graphs showing the change in density vs the distance from the sea wall or nearest drainage site but these are figures I will put in my final report (data not shown).
I was unsure whether to use the graph for average density/abundance vs the total density/abundance. Both show the trend that I would expect however the average graphs seem to be quite simplistic although clear but you lose out on some variation between density within each rock (perhaps this is better suited in another study as I’m sure position on a rock may have an effect on barnacle abundance). In terms of abundance vs density, both give the same trend as the quadrat size was constant however abundance comparison is skewed slightly towards those rocks that were larger and had more samples. This is highlighted in the average abundance and average density graphs – you only start to see a separation when you take into account density.
The debate between these two graphs is likely something I will think about as I am finishing writing my report.
Figure 1. Total barnacle abundance for each treatment site.
Figure 2. Average barnacle abundance at each rock vs each treatment site.
Figure 3. Total barnacle density at each treatment. (I chose this graph for small assignment 5).
Figure 4. Average barnacle density for each rock at each treatment site.