Following is the abstract with the bad effects spelled out a bit more clearly. I went over things again, and I don't think you're reaching the wrong conclusion...attached are the two graphs that give the results. Am I totally missing something here?
The way land is used in agriculture often affects natural ecological habitats nearby. In this study, information about the past and present collections of fish in both the central Chattahoochee River system and the in-stream habitats was used to test the sensitivity of fish populations to land use. A positive relationship was found between agricultural land use and the level of deposits in the river. The more agricultural land use near the water, the more sediment was found. Greater levels of sediment were generally accompanied by less fish diversity, that is, the more sediment, the fewer number of fish species present in the water. In mainstream water, a relationship between agriculture and species abundance was found: More agricultural land use was accompanied by a fewer number of species. This relationship was not observed in headwater reaches, suggesting that mainstream reaches are much more responsive to land use than headwater areas. These results are important in the field of fish conservation.
2 comments:
Looks good to me. My earlier inaccurate conclusion was that the location of the agricultural land was a problem (near mainstream bad, near headwaters OK - which seemed odd). Correct conclusion: agriculture in watershed is problem for mainstream, not so much for headwaters.
Ah. Okay. Thank you! (The science abstract is worded a bit weirdly, if you ask me. But we get there!)
Love you!
Post a Comment