18.08.2013 Views

Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier

Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier

Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

METHODS<br />

Study site - The exact position of the field experiment within the study area is shown<br />

in Figure 4.1. The sediments there were moderately sorted with median particle size<br />

of 2.64) (Chapter 2) and with no obvious environmental gradient (pers. obs.). The<br />

sediment surface in the selected area was well oxidised and had no macroalgal cover<br />

during the summer of 1996. This was an important consideration for the maintenance<br />

of controls. For example, weed mat establishment within this area during the<br />

experiment would have resulted in a lack of proper controls.<br />

Experimental design - Six experimental blocks were set out in a line perpendicular to<br />

the direction of the flood tide (Figure 4.2). The use of 6 replicates allowed non-<br />

parametric statistical analyses, if necessary, while greater replication was limited by<br />

the practical work involved. Within each block, three plots (each of 1m 2) were<br />

marked out (Figure 4.2). These plots were 0.5m apart from each other and at least<br />

1.5m away from those of neighbouring blocks. Since P. elegans patches were just<br />

above 1m2 in area, this design ensured that replicates would be independent since their<br />

separation was larger than the average P. elegans patch size. The plots were randomly<br />

assigned as unmanipulated control, net plot or weed treatment plot (see later) within<br />

each block. The size of the plots were as large as practically possible: maximising the<br />

number of replicates was considered to be more important than increasing the size of<br />

the plots. The spatial arrangement of experimental plots, therefore, corresponded to a<br />

randomised block design. This design is excellent for field experiments in which the<br />

distributions of the organisms are unknown since it automatically produces an<br />

interspersion of treatments and reduces the effect of chance events on the results of the<br />

experiment (Krebs, 1989). Furthermore, Zar (1984) suggested that the blocking<br />

enables more of the variability among the data to be accounted for, with the desirable<br />

outcome of a smaller mean square and greater statistical power.<br />

87

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!