I'm doing my Geography IB HL coursework on beaches and coasts at the moment and since both my hypotheses were proven incorrect by my data im a bit stuck at the analysis bit trying to prove why.... could someone be so kind as to help me out? just send me a personal message if you're willing!
my 2 hypotheses are:
1)There is a positive correlation between gradient of the beach and particle size
2)There is a negative correlation between the distance to the headland and the size of the particles
just ask if you need more info.
oh and also to measure sediment size i used a vernier calliper... what could i use in place of this?
oh and does anyone know what this grid square thing is called... i rmb using it when i was younger for biology for outdoor fieldwork, like you put it down on the ground and it has 4 sections and you could the number of whatever youre investigating to find what is the average number for that site or something....
any help will be greatly appreciated!!
Turn on thread page Beta
calling all geogers IB coursework (beaches, coasts) help! watch
- Thread Starter
- 13-07-2009 07:50
- 13-07-2009 08:18
I'm guessing it wasn't a sandy beach if you used a vernier caliper? But you could use sand sieving instead and find the mass of a number of particles. I can provide the example from my coursework later.
That grid is knwon as a quadrat, well at my school/6th form it was.
Pm me the types of data you collected and I can have a thnk about it for you. I will check what I wrote in mine too.
Oh and I did coasts coursework for A2 level geography, not the same but similar.
- 14-07-2009 00:18
itll probably sound a bit patronising but did you make sure you did all of your measurements away from coastal defences and groines etc?
2nd the underlying rocks can have a greater effect than sediment coarseness
for example, where i live the beaches show little correlation between angle and coarseness due to:
underlying cretaceous platforms
ww2 beach defences
and so on