Stage 6: Evaluating the fieldwork

• H1: Bedload size:

  Strengths:

  • Callipers provided data taht was accurate to the nearest mm (accurate)
  • The same method and equipment was used at each site (reliable)
  • 10 pieces of bedload at each site allowed an average to be calculated (accurate)
  • Data was collected on the same day (reliable)
• H2: Velocity

  Strengths:

  • 3 measurements were recorded (left, middle, right). An average was calculated (reliable and accurate)
  • The same method and equipment were used at each site (reliable)
  • Our data was collected on the same day when there was no rain and the river was not too high/low. A change in weather could have affected the velocity and turbulence levels.
• H2: Velocity

  Problems:

  • Floats got stuck and had to be released (less reliable/accurate)
  • Didn't use the same float every time (inconsistencies)
  • Human error with start/stop stopwatch (less reliable)
  • Different groups collected data (inconsistencies)
  • 3 velocity readings in the lower course were not enough (less reliable)
• H1: Bedload size:

  Problems:

  • Not all the load could be measured (boulders at site 1/suspended sediment at site 6) (less reliable)
  • Different groups collected the data at each site (inconsistency)
• Number of sites:

  2 in upper course 3 in middle course 1 in lower course

  Strengths:

  • allowed us to investigate the long profile of the river and achieve our aim

  Problems:

  • only 1 site in lower course. This made data less reliable for the full length of the river.

  Other data that would be useful:

  • 1 additional site in lower course
  • use systematic sampling to collect data every 1km downstream
• Extending scope of study:

  1. We could investigate an additional hypothesis such as bedload shape, gradient or discharge.
  2. We could use systematic sampling to identify 12 sites at equal intervals down the river with 4 in each course.
  3. We could compare our results with the Annalog river which has less development.