Tables and Graphs: Elevation Gradient

I decided to use a table and few graphs to summarize my data. For the values such as the Shannon-Wiener Index and species density, I had trouble deciding between a table or graph. I was originally going to graph these, but upon creating the graph I realized it would make the most sense to use a table (included below) as there were only three values and I felt that a visual representation was not needed to see the variation in the density and diversity. I did use bar graphs, one for each elevation, showing each species and the number of individuals of each species present to give a better idea of the variation at the various elevation categories. I thought that this was a good way to visually show species that were dominant and how the species were distributed. I was surprised to find that the diversity was the highest in the mid-elevation, which was not what I originally expected in my hypothesis. Although the species density was highest at the low elevation, species evenness was higher at the mid elevation, which I think is what contributed to the higher index. I found this very interesting and want to do more research into why this is. As I mentioned in my previous blog post, there was a weed that made up half of the plant density in the lower elevation, so I want to explore this further as well. I wonder if mid elevations have a more even distribution and higher diversity due to the potential inability of certain weeds to thrive here.

Table 1. Comparison of average density, species evenness, species richness, and the Shannon-Wiener Index (H’) across three elevation ranges (200-210, 100-110, and 0-10 meters above sea level) on Mount Douglas. Data was collected across 10 quadrants at each elevation.