Amanote Research
Register
Sign In
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
Open PDF
Abstract
Available in
full text
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.
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
PM and R
Physical Therapy
Sports Science
Sports Therapy
Neurology
Medicine
Rehabilitation
Supplemental Information 6: PQ and CPI Estimates of % Cover for Six Benthic Reef Categories.
