(PDF) Supplemental Information 5: Comparison of Observed

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.

doi 10.7717/peerj.8167/supp-5

Full Text

Open PDF

Abstract

Available in full text

Date

Unknown

Authors

Unknown

Publisher

PeerJ

Related search

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

English

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.

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

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

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

Figure 5: Average Percentage Benthic Cover at EG, AG and SW.

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

Figure 3: Percent Cover of Benthic Community Components.

English

Amanote Research

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.

doi 10.7717/peerj.8167/supp-5

Full Text

Abstract

Date

Authors

Publisher

Related search

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Figure 5: Average Percentage Benthic Cover at EG, AG and SW.

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.

Figure 3: Percent Cover of Benthic Community Components.