Appendix 1 0

P U T T I N G DATA INTO
TABLES AND F I G U R E S

TABLES

Two versions of the same information appear in the tables below. Notice how
Table lb has refined the information for more clarity and ease in reading.

TABLE l a
Percentage Germination of Phytolacca americana Seeds with
Hot Water and Sulfuric Acid Treatments
Treatments
Germination Hot water Sulfuric acid
2001 None 90 min/80~ 12 h/60~ 15 min 30 min
Rep 1 2 19 30 76 49
Rep 2 0 23 30 54 41
Avg. 2 reps 2 21 30 65 45

2002
Rep 1 3 42 36 80 42
Rep 2 5 28 32 62 76
Avg. 2 reps 4 35 34 71 59
*Mean (both yr) 3 28c 32c 68a 52b
*Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

297
298 Appendix 10

The arrangement in Table la does not allow us to read down from the headings
to the information in the stub and field. Reps, or replications, listed in the stub
are not germination as their heading states, and numbers in the field are not
treatments but germination, and the reader is not told that the numbers in the
field are percentages. The 2001 should appear parallel to 2002 and not as part
of the main stub head above the line. Notice that the treatment times appear
as mixed units of minutes and hours. In addition to these points that cloud the
clarity in presentation, too many data points may distract from the point made
in the table. Representative data would be better than all of them. The analy-
sis has not been done between replications but on combined replications and
years. Comparison of the means is likely all that is needed.

TABLE l b
Percentage Germination of Phytolacca americana Seeds
Treated with Hot Water and Sulfuric Acid
Germination (%)
Treatment (time/temp.) 2001 2002 Mean*
Control 2 4 3d
Hot Water (h/C)
1.5/80 21 35 28c
12.0/60 30 34 32c
Sulfuric Acid (h)
0.25 65 71 68a
0.50 45 59 52b
*Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 0.05 level.

Table lb improves the clarity of information by making the table read down,
combining the replications as was done in the statistical analysis, using uniform
units for measuring time (h), and providing meaning to the numbers in the field
with the percentage sign (%). Depending on the importance of this information
to the study and space available in the paper, we might use Table lb in a pub-
lication, or we might simply provide the mean percentages and a comment on
significant differences in the text without using a table at all.

FIGURES

The following two figures depict the same fictitious data. In Fig. la three of the
lines, those for the poultry manures, are not statistically different. The symbols
for all six lines in Fig. la are black circles, squares, and triangles, and their use
Putting Data into Tables and Figures 299

FIGURE la
Escherichia col~ die-off in a Captina silt loam amended with cornish hen manure,
turkey manure, caged layer manure, beef cattle manure, swine lagoon effluent, or
septic tank effluent.
300 Appendix 10

with the poultry manure data does not help much in distinguishing one line
from another. The lines themselves should be the most prominent images, but
the line around the box is heavier and distracting. The entire figure is compressed
vertically so that the intervals on the X-axis are unconventionally shorter than
those on the Y-axis. The words Time and days are somewhat redundant, and
Days alone would be sufficient. The tic marks should not extend both within
and outside the axis lines. The X-axis also contains too many numbers that run
together, and they do not represent the actual days on which the data points
fall. That axis should not be extended beyond the last data point. Space is also
wasted in the area between 10~ and 102 on the Y-axis, and because the axis is on

FIGURE lb
Escherichia coli die-off in a Captina silt loam amended with poultry manure, beef
cattle manure, swine lagoon effluent, or septic tank effluent.
Putting Data into Tables and Figures 301

a logarithmic scale, it need not begin at zero. Statistically, the fit of the lines
with data is not apparent.
Notice the improvements in Fig. lb. The data for all three kinds of poultry
manure have been combined. In the text I will tell my audience what kinds
I used and that no significant difference in die-off of E. coli occurred among
the three. I will make clear that the R 2 represents the fit of the regression line
of the geometric means for the three poultry manures. Revisions in the lines,
symbols, and axes of Fig. lb to achieve greater simplicity make the message
conveyed by the data easier to comprehend. Increasing the length of the X-axis,
removing the heavy box, and making tic marks more distinctive also add to
clarity.