Analysis And Conclusion Example
Analysis and Interpretation
Trends of the data: With the cross-sectional area on the whole it seems to increase as the river progresses, with Site 1 being 9.23 and Site 5 being 18.13. However Site 4 has a higher figure than Site 5, yet this was due to the fact that we could only use part of Site 4, as one half of the river was completely dry, so the results from that site are likely to be an anomaly. Looking at the Bedload in the bar graphs it is clear that with the pebble roundness the pebbles got more rounded as the river progressed, with the average being 3.5 for site 1 and 4.4 for Site 5. Site 2 here was the anomaly as it’s average was lower than site 1, yet this is could be due to our random sampling method which meant we only looked at random rocks from the Site. In regards to pebble size there really seems to be no correlation at all as the sites go on, with the figures dropping at site 3 only to rise again at Sites 3 and 4. Normally I would expect that due to erosion, the size of the pebbles would decrease along the course of the river. A reason for not seeing this could be due to the fact that in the weeks leading up to our fieldwork we experienced a lot of rain. This would have lead to a greater discharge in the river, leading to more transportation, as according to the hjulstrom curve, the greater the velocity the more transportation. This lead to bigger pebbles being found at all sites. Plus, the sides of the rocky mountain sides that surround the river are likely to have crumbled, depositing rocks of all sizes along the river, particularly at Site 2, which has a high size of 8.6. I know from Bradshaw’s model that as the discharge of the river increases so should many other figures, including velocity and channel width. I can see from my figures that as the river continues the discharge generally increases, with it dipping only slightly at the final Site. The final sight however has been managed to make it straight which could have affected the
Trends of the data: With the cross-sectional area on the whole it seems to increase as the river progresses, with Site 1 being 9.23 and Site 5 being 18.13. However Site 4 has a higher figure than Site 5, yet this was due to the fact that we could only use part of Site 4, as one half of the river was completely dry, so the results from that site are likely to be an anomaly. Looking at the Bedload in the bar graphs it is clear that with the pebble roundness the pebbles got more rounded as the river progressed, with the average being 3.5 for site 1 and 4.4 for Site 5. Site 2 here was the anomaly as it’s average was lower than site 1, yet this is could be due to our random sampling method which meant we only looked at random rocks from the Site. In regards to pebble size there really seems to be no correlation at all as the sites go on, with the figures dropping at site 3 only to rise again at Sites 3 and 4. Normally I would expect that due to erosion, the size of the pebbles would decrease along the course of the river. A reason for not seeing this could be due to the fact that in the weeks leading up to our fieldwork we experienced a lot of rain. This would have lead to a greater discharge in the river, leading to more transportation, as according to the hjulstrom curve, the greater the velocity the more transportation. This lead to bigger pebbles being found at all sites. Plus, the sides of the rocky mountain sides that surround the river are likely to have crumbled, depositing rocks of all sizes along the river, particularly at Site 2, which has a high size of 8.6. I know from Bradshaw’s model that as the discharge of the river increases so should many other figures, including velocity and channel width. I can see from my figures that as the river continues the discharge generally increases, with it dipping only slightly at the final Site. The final sight however has been managed to make it straight which could have affected the