Pearsons correlativity for location one shows that between the organic structure length and venters length there is a important correlativity where as the organic structure length additions so does the venters length, seen in figure 1. Between the organic structure length and front wing tablet length, in figure 3, there is some correlativity where the two variables increases with one another ( r=0.468, p=0.001, n=50 ) . Besides the venters length and front wing tablet length demo some correlativity between the two variables that besides increases as the other additions, in figure 2, ( r=0.594, p=0.000, n=50 ) .

Figure 3: spread graph demoing correlativity between organic structure and front wing pad length at location 1.

Figure 2: spread graph demoing correlativity between venters and front wing pad length at location 1.

Figure 1: spread graph demoing correlativity between organic structure and abdomen length at location 1.

## Average measurings were besides calculated for location two. The organic structure length was 2.5384 ( sd=0.11956 ) , abdomen length was 1.0919 ( sd=0.06232 ) and front wing tablet length was 1.0379 ( sd=0.03874 ) .

## For location two Pearson ‘s correlativity shows that there are correlativities between all the variables. The trial shows that between the organic structure and venters length, in figure 4, there is some correlativity ( r=0.450, p=0.001, n=50 ) where as the organic structure length increases the venters length does excessively. Between the organic structure length and front wing pad length there is really small correlativity, that is about non important, which is seen in figure 6, but the two variables do additions with one another ( r=0.292, p=0.039, n=50 ) . From figure 5 it is seen that between the venters and front wing pad length there is small, about undistinguished, correlativity between the two variables even though as one increases so does the other additions ( r=0.308, p=0.030, n=50 ) .

Figure 6: spread graph demoing correlativity between organic structure and front wing pad length at location 2.

Figure 5: spread graph demoing correlativity between venters and front wing pad length at location 2.

Figure 4: spread graph demoing correlativity between organic structure and abdomen length at location 2.

## The consequences for the Shapiro-Wilk trial are presented in Table 1.

Location

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

1

Body Length

.988

50

.892

Abdomens Length

.985

50

.781

Front flying pad length

.984

50

.730

2

Body Length

.978

50

.469

Abdomens Length

.970

50

.235

Front flying pad length

.978

50

.477

Table 1: A table demoing Shapiro-Wilk normalcy trial.

The consequences of the normalcy trial in table 1show that all the measurings for organic structure length, venters length and front tablet flying length for both locations are usually distributed as P & A ; gt ; 0.05 for all the informations, ( p50=0.892, p50=0.781, p50=0.730, p50=0.469, p50=0.235, p50=0.477 ) . This therefore accepts the void hypothesis that the consequences do non divert from normal.

Pearson ‘s correlativity was besides done for both locations together. For both locations together all the consequences showed some correlativity. Front flying pad length and venters length have some correlativity between them ( r=0.445, p=0.000, n=100 ) . The correlativity shows that as the forepart flying pad length increases the venters length addition excessively. There is more correlativity between the forepart flying tablets and organic structure length ( r=0.71, p=0.000, n=100 ) even though it is merely a little correlativity. This correlativity besides shows that as the forepart flying tablet increases the organic structure length additions. The other Pearson ‘s correlativity trial between the venters length and organic structure length besides shows a higher degree of correlativity comparison to the others ( r=0.568, p =0.000, n=100 ) .

From the t-test, in table 2, for the forepart flying pad length it is seen that there is no important difference between the agencies from location one ( m=1.0132, sd=0.05662 ) and location 2 ( m=1.0379, sd=0.03874 ) of the Craspedolepta ( t98=-2.544, p=0.013 ) . There was besides no important difference between the venters length at location 1 ( m=1.0968, sd=0.8590 ) and location 2 ( m=1.0919, sd=0.06232 ) of the Craspedolepta ( t98=0.330, p=0.742 ) . Different to this the t-test consequences for organic structure length shows important differences between the agencies of location 1 ( m=2.3531, sd=0.18040 ) and location 2 ( m=2.5384, sd=0.11956 ) for Craspedolepta ( t98=-5.890, p=0.000 ) .

## Independent Samples Test

Levene ‘s Test for Equality of Discrepancies

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

T

df

Abdomens Length

Equal discrepancies assumed

5.714

.019

.330

98

Front flying pad length

Equal discrepancies assumed

3.211

.076

-2.544

98

Body Length

Equal discrepancies assumed

8.744

.004

-5.890

98

Table 2: A table screening independent sample trial.

## Heavy metals informations

## At both location one and two the medians where calculated for Cu, Zn and lead. In figure 7 it I seen that the median of Cu at location 1 is 2120.111 and at location2 the median is 27.50. At location 1 the median for Zn is 14426.5 and location 2 is 6285, which is seen in figure 11. For lead at location 1 the median is 7152.5 and location 2 it is 9520, this is seen in figure 12.

Figure 9: box secret plans demoing the average and scopes of lead at both locations.

Figure 8: box secret plans demoing the average and scopes of Zinc at both locations.

Figure 7: box secret plans demoing the average and scopes of Cu at both locations.

## Spearman ‘s rank was done for location 1. There is some positive correlativity between Cu and lead ( rs=0.322, p=0.010, n=64 ) . The consequences for Cu and Zn show a important positive correlativity ( rs=0.876, p=0.000, n=64 ) . Finally there is really small undistinguished positive correlativity between lead and Zn ( rs=0.201, p=0.111, n=64 ) . Spearman ‘s rank for location 2 besides shows that there are some positive correlativities between all the variables. The trial shows that between Cu and lead at that place a important positive correlativity ( rs=0.684, p=0.000, n=64 ) . Between Cu and Zn there is besides a positive correlativity ( rs=0.682, p=0.000, n=64 ) . Finally the consequences between lead and Zn show the most important positive correlativity ( rs=0.839, p=0.000, n=64 ) .

The consequences of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normalcy trial show that the bulk of informations do non follow a normal distribution. At both locations, seen in figure 10 and 11, the information for Zn does non follow a normal distribution ( p64=0.005, p64=0.000 ) . The information for lead, in figures 12 and 13, besides deviates from a normal distribution ( p64=0.000, p64=0.000 ) . Therefore at both locations the informations for lead and Zn rejects the void hypothesis.

Figure 11: Normality secret plans demoing the distribution of Zn at location 2.

Figure 10: Normality secret plans demoing the distribution of Zn at location 1.

Figure 13: Normality secret plans demoing the distribution of lead at location 2.

Figure 12: Normality secret plans demoing the distribution of lead at location 1.

At location 1 the void hypothesis for Cu is accepted as this consequence is normal ( p64=0.064 ) . This is the complete antonym at location 2 as the consequences is non normal distributed ( p64=0.000 ) . this is seen in figure 14 and 15.

Figure 15: Normality secret plans demoing the distribution of Cu at location 2.

Figure 14: Normality secret plans demoing the distribution of Cu at location 1.

## Spearman ‘s rank was besides done for both locations together. This showed that between Cu and Zn at that place was little positive correlativity ( rs=0.106, p=0.236, n=128 ) , this is the same for lead and Zn ( rs=0.453, p=0.000, n=128 ) . This is different fro Cu and Zn as there is somewhat more positive correlativity ( rs=0.694, p=0.000, n=128 ) .

## The mann-whitney trial, seen in table 3, was done for Zn, lead and Cu at both locations. There is a important difference between the medians of Zn in both locations ( U64, 64 =1008.00, p=0.000 ) . In both locations there is no important difference between the medians of lead ( U64, 64 =1704.00, p=0.101 ) . For Cu there was important difference between the medians of location 1 and location 2 ( U64, 64 =170.500, p=0.000 ) .

## Test Statisticsa

Copper

Lead

Zinc

Mann-Whitney U

170.500

1704.000

1008.000

Wilcoxon W

2250.500

3784.000

3088.000

Omega

-8.949

-1.639

-4.956

Asymp. Sig. ( 2-tailed )

.000

.101

.000

Grouping Variable: Location

Table 3: A table screening mann-whitney trial.