Figure 4: Differences in Percent Cover Estimates Between Methods Against the Average Percent Cover Estimated by Both Methods for Each Benthic Component Across the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

doi 10.7717/peerj.8167/fig-4

Full Text

Abstract

Available in

Date

Unknown

Authors

Unknown

Publisher

PeerJ

Related search

Table 1: Summary of the ANCOVA Full Model Results for Each Benthic Component, Comparing Difference in Percent Cover as a Function of Reef Type and Average Percent Cover.

English

Table 2: Summary of Conclusions From the Comparisons of Percent Cover Estimates Between Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) and Photoquadrat (PQ) Methods for Six Benthic Components on the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

English

Supplemental Information 2: Differences in % Cover Between Methods Plotted Against the Mean Estimate From Both Methods Across the Three Reef Types After Converting Photoquadrat (PQ) Estimates to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones.

English

Figure 3: Scatterplots Showing Original Percent Cover Values Obtained Using the Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Method vs. The Photoquadrat (PQ) Method for Each Benthic Component on the Three Reef Types.

English

Supplemental Information 5: Comparison of Observed and Converted Photoquadrat (PQ) % Cover Estimates at Each Reef Type for the Four Benthic Components for Which Differences Between Methods in % Cover Scaled With Average % Cover.

English

Figure 3: Percent Cover of Benthic Community Components.

English

Supplemental Information 1: Scatterplots of Original Percent Cover Obtained Using the Photoquadrat (PQ) Method vs. Values After Converting to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones for Each Benthic Component on Three Reef Types.

English

Percent Differences: Another Look

English

Supplemental Information 6: PQ and CPI Estimates of % Cover for Six Benthic Reef Categories.

English

Amanote Research

Figure 4: Differences in Percent Cover Estimates Between Methods Against the Average Percent Cover Estimated by Both Methods for Each Benthic Component Across the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

Full Text

Abstract

Date

Authors

Publisher

Related search

Table 1: Summary of the ANCOVA Full Model Results for Each Benthic Component, Comparing Difference in Percent Cover as a Function of Reef Type and Average Percent Cover.

Table 2: Summary of Conclusions From the Comparisons of Percent Cover Estimates Between Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) and Photoquadrat (PQ) Methods for Six Benthic Components on the Three Reef Types in Barbados.

Supplemental Information 2: Differences in % Cover Between Methods Plotted Against the Mean Estimate From Both Methods Across the Three Reef Types After Converting Photoquadrat (PQ) Estimates to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones.

Figure 3: Scatterplots Showing Original Percent Cover Values Obtained Using the Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Method vs. The Photoquadrat (PQ) Method for Each Benthic Component on the Three Reef Types.

Supplemental Information 5: Comparison of Observed and Converted Photoquadrat (PQ) % Cover Estimates at Each Reef Type for the Four Benthic Components for Which Differences Between Methods in % Cover Scaled With Average % Cover.

Figure 3: Percent Cover of Benthic Community Components.

Supplemental Information 1: Scatterplots of Original Percent Cover Obtained Using the Photoquadrat (PQ) Method vs. Values After Converting to Chain Point-Intercept (CPI) Ones for Each Benthic Component on Three Reef Types.

Percent Differences: Another Look

Supplemental Information 6: PQ and CPI Estimates of % Cover for Six Benthic Reef Categories.