After collecting the data, I organized it all into an excel spreadsheet. After organizing I had a few difficulties deciding how best to display the information within the data set I had before me. I thought I could summarize the average composition of trees by converting the presence of each one to a percentage. In the end that strategy seized to make sense to me, so I averaged the density of each species in all of the locations adjacent to the water, and all of the locations within the forest (classified as 50m away from the river and any manmade gaps in the canopy such as park trails >4m and the clearcut that boarders the north-eastern side of the provincial park).
The outcome was more or less what I expected, as there was higher species richness adjacent to the river than there was within the forest. Broadleaf deciduous trees were more abundant along the river than within the forest and deciduous trees dominated the stands 50m within the forest.
I did expect there to be more Populus balsamifera (black cottonwood) present along the river than there was but the fact that they were not found further within the forest is what I would have predicted.
The data I revealed did give me the idea of exploring which factor is more important for the distribution of trees, water or sunlight availability? Tolerance to inundation?
In hindsight I wish I did another set of plots further within the forest to see if the composition continued to change.
Hi, I’m trying to visualize your data set and what you mean above. I’m not totally clear why you couldn’t get a density estimate for each sample taken and then average these that way you have an average and variation. Also, you were also measuring river speed and so you want to be able to compare densities in different locations to river speed don’t you? The graphs visually look great!
I did get a density estimate for each sample taken and then averaged them, I guess I was not clear enough! Will work on being more concise in my paper. Thank you for your feedback!