Originally posted by leftovers
Hi,
Given the statements in this forum about the timeliness of the NSW values, would it not be prudent to run the assay comparisons against recent (also, the data, if not run in the same fashion or with the same technique could be significantly different) data to validate the findings?
Sure, and those comparisons will be in the next article.
Or further, actually test NSW from several reef sources, as they are likely to vary significantly by locality?
I'd love to do, you got the money to pay for it?
I would think given the scope of your study that you would have wanted several samples from GBR, Fiji, and Indonesian reefs tested by your peers or yourself for at least one geographically relevant NSW data point.
Right. Get real. You don't have any conception of the costs involved with such a testing program. If the data are not in the literature, and to the best of my knowledge they are not, just going to these sites to take the samples would cost several thousands of dollars.
Another factor not addressed that could have had serious consequences for the analysis is filtration of the samples prior to analysis. I did read in another post that there was no filtration: wouldnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t a structured test protocol that eliminated this been more prudent? Or was this just a simple over site?
It was no an oversight. I consider it of minor consequence. To do this work I would have needed have the water samples filtered at each person's house. The water would have need to be filtered to submicron levels to remove bacterial particulates. While this would have been feasible had I been doing all the samples in my lab, it is not feasible to expect volunteers to do this.
Likewise by the time samples got the labs, the state of any original bacterial or other particulate could have been significantly altered. If the samples had been filtered previously, more particulates could have been formed.
The lab doesn't do this procedure, it simply is neither required nor commonly done in marine evironmental analyses in that region. So they did not do it. I choose to assume that the relative amount of particulate material is fairly small, and will deal with it in the discussion.
Given the supposition that data on reef water composition is lacking (or non-existent) and the known variance of reef keeping habits as you stated, doesn't that more than trivialize your conclusion that, "Well, even the most adventurous of these folks would likely not have guessed the differences found in these 23 reef tanks"?
Frankly, I don't see your point.
I would think that this is not only a rather obvious conclusion but would further implicate that the absolute randomness of animals-inverts/vertsââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢, live/dead rock, sand, the unknown food sources, and variability within water sources for makeup water as stated in your own words would prevent any kind of meaningful or statistically relevant conclusion to be drawn.
The tanks inhabitants are neither random nor unknown. Neither are food sources. Make up water is inconsequential, as I am discussing the final product.
I wonder as well, seeing as there is no mean data for reef NSW water values to compare these samples to, if any conclusion would hold value to the hobbyist or the scientist.
That is up to for the individual to decide.
The dendrograms, while interesting pictures, show nothing relevant since the clusters (from what I can tell) donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t show any strong relational value.
Actually the clusters show very strong relational values, I am sorry you can't discern that.
Further conclusions that the similarities are due to the wide spread use of Instant Ocean is also meaningless unless you know this to be fact,
That statement is incorrect.
I didnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t see any information about the samples themselves this would have been extremely helpful to know before hand in reading this report.
Perhaps. I doubt it. In any case presenting those data, about 140 pages of text, is impossible. You will have to be satisfied with the summary data.
One final comment/question is why didnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t you use a 3D picture or cluster picture to display the 3D distribution data? I think doing so would have more clearly illustrated your point.
Glad to do it. Send me the software to that can do it, and I will be glad to use it to produce an image. The three images I used clearly show the relationships of the samples to the confidence interevals and relevent points from the 3 primary axes of ordination. Data are presented this way in most journals, so we have to live with it here.
