Discussion:

For this experiment an attempt was made to simulate the real life flow of water currents over an Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture site. For this experiment all the models are at a 1:6 scales which means the actual size of the structures are six times that used in the experiment. Also, in the flume tank at the Marine Institute we were able to simulate water flows at a 1:6 scale to provide us with data that would give a good representation of what flow would be like at an actual IMTA site. This information is important for aquaculture because it will provides the flow of water over the different structures at different flow speeds. This data will be useful when determining the spacing of the different components of the IMTA set-up to allow for optimal nutrient distribution between the various structures. Also, the movement of the salmon cage mesh, mussel lines and seaweed lines was recorded and graphed to aid in determining the optimal spacing between these structures. The flow data was displayed on a linear regression plot in order to show the linear relationship between the flow speeds simulated and the flow of the water over the various structures. These graphs provide great visual representation of what the flows will be like when speeds are increased and they are also valuable visuals to show the strong linear relationship between the speed of the flow and the movement of the flow over the structures. Obtained from this statistical analysis were P values which allowed for the formation of the null hypothesis that there is not relationship between the X and Y axis. Meaning that there is no relationship between the increasing flow speeds and the increasing flows over the IMTA structures. Another value obtained from the linear regression models was the S value which gave us a deviation value from the standard line. This value determines if the data is valid since if a high S value was obtained this would show there is great deviation meaning the data would be rejected as being valid. Another valuable statistic that was obtained was the R-squared value as a percent which states that at a certain percentage we can attribute the variability of the results to the independent variable which in this experiment was speed (cm/s). In figure 1 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 11, which was placed in front of the salmon cage at a depth which simulates 5 m. In the figure we can see the clear linear relationship between the speeds and the flows over the swoffer. This is to be expected since there is no structures in front of this model to disrupt the flow. The only variable which could affect the flow is the salmon cage placed behind the flow meter but as can be seen it had little affect. The p value obtained at this location was 0 which means that we reject the null hypothesis and determine that indeed at this location there is a relationship between the speed of the flow and the flow over the current meter. The s value that we obtained from this trail states that the values obtained

will only deviate by 0.28 cm/s at the different speeds. This is an insignificant deviation since the obtained values are quite high and such a small deviation will not alter the data enough to cause problems. Another significant data point obtained from the statistical analysis was the R-squared percentage which was 100% for swoffer 11. What this value states is that 100% of the variability of the data points is a result of the flow speeds. This provides enough evidence to state that at the position of swoffer 11 the IMTA structure had little affect of the flow speed. In figure 2 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 12, which was placed in front of the salmon cage at a depth which simulates 10 m. In the figure we can see the clear linear relationship between the speeds and the flows over the swoffer. This again is expected there are no structures in front of the current meter to interrupt the flow only the structures behind and the depth which both seem to have insignificant effects on the flow. The p value obtained at this location was 0 which means we reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there is a significant relationship between the speed of the flow and the flow over the current meter. The s value obtained from this location was 0.076 which means that at a deviation of 95% these values will only be 0.076 from their original value which is very insignificant given the high values obtained. Also, the Rsquared value was obtained as a percentage which states that the variability of the data points can be 100% attributed to the independent variable which is speed in this experiment. In figure 3 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 8, which was placed in the middle of the salmon cage at a depth which simulates 5 m. In the figure we can see that there is some variability in the data point however there is still a clear linear relationship between the speeds and the flows over the swoffer. At this location some variability is to be expected since the flow will be disrupted by the mesh of the salmon cage. However, as can be seen by the various statistical values obtained this variance is not significant. The p value obtained is again 0 which allows as to reject the null hypothesis and state that there is a clear relationship between speed of flow and flow over the current meters. Also, the R-squared value gives a percentage of 99.2% which means that 99.2% of the variance of the data points can be attributed to the independent variable, speed. The s value is very low which means that the data points only deviate from their current positions by 0.42 which again is insignificant. So given this information it is easy to conclude that although the presence of the salmon cage did provide some interference in data it was not significant. In figure 4 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 9, which was placed to the left of the salmon cage at a depth which simulates 5 m. This graph has a very good linear relationship which is very similar to the figures 1 and 2. We can see very little interference in the data points likely as a result of little disruption in the flow. The p value obtained

was 0 which states that we reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is a clear relationship between the speed of the flow and the flow over the current flow. Another significant statistic obtained which provides outlines a clear relationship between flow speed and current meter readings is the R-squared value of 100%. This value indicates that 100% of the variability of the data points is a result of the independent variable which in this case is flow speed. The s value obtained which states the 95% deviation from the points gives a low insignificant value of 0.292. These values allow a conclusion to be made that the IMTA structures had little affect on the flow and that it is dependent upon the speed of the original flow. In figure 5 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 6, which was placed behind the salmon cage and in front of the mussel lines at a depth which simulates 5 m. As can be seen in the figure there is interference as a result of the salmon cage and possibly due to the mussel lines. Variability at this location was expected since at this site the flow meter was moved every minute, 50 cm from the centre of the cage. This gave a total of five measurements spanning half the length of the cage to provide a variety of results. However, as can be seen the affects of the cage was very minimal. The p value obtained was 0 which means we can reject the null hypothesis and state a clear relationship between the speed of the flow and the flow over the meters. A R-squared values of 99.6% was obtained which was very significant since this flow meter was in the middle of the IMTA structures and still 99.6% of the variability of the results can be attributed to speed of the flow. The s value which was obtained from this experiment was 0.702 which means that the results will only deviate 0.702 which is very insignificant given flow speeds range from 10- 22 cm/s. In figure 6 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 4, which was placed behind the salmon cage and in front of the mussel lines at a depth which simulates 10 m. Again in this figure it is clear that there is interference as a result of the salmon cage and likely the mussel lines. However, this interference is not significant since the p value obtained was 0.002 which is lower then 0.05 therefore with 95% confidence we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that flow over the current meter is directly a result of speed of the current. Also, the R-squared value states that 97.3% of the variability in the data is directly a result of changes in the speed of the flow. This is a much lower value then we obtained from the previous figures however it is still a very high percentage and we must conclude that the interference by the IMTA structures is insignificant. The s value also gives a very high value of 1.558 which is getting very high however since the values range from 10- 22 cm/s this value is very not significant. Remember that again in this situation measurements were taken by the flow meter a five different locations from the centre of the salmon cage. In figure 7 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current

meter, swoffer 2, which was placed behind the salmon cage and in front of the mussel lines at a depth which simulates 7.5 m. Again in this figure there is some variability in the data points however not as much as the previous two which were taking measurements every minute at 50 cm intervals from the centre of the salmon cage. The p value obtained was 0 which means we can reject the null hypothesis and that there is a clear relationship between the speed of the flow and the movement of the current over the flow meters. At this location we obtained a R-squared value of 99.4% which states that 99.4% of the variability of the data points is directly a result of the speed. This means that the IMTA structures that were around this meter had very little interference on the flow. Also, the s value obtained was 0.84 which again was an insignificant value allowing a conclusion to be made that at this position the IMTA structures had very little affect on the flow rate over the meters. In figure 8 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 6b, which was placed behind the mussel lines and in front of the seaweed lines at a depth which simulates 5 m. In this figure little variability of the data points is seen likely as a result of increased distance from the salmon cage which appeared to have disrupted flow the most. At this location a p value of 0 was again obtained drawing the conclusion that we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the speed of the flow is related to the flow over the current meters. The R-Squared value that was obtained from this figure was 99.6% which attributes a great deal of the variability in the data points to the speed of the flow meaning that the IMTA structures had little affect on the flow of the water. The s value taken from this data set was 0.702 which was insignificant since the flow speeds range 10-24 cm/s and such a small deviation would have insignificant results. In figure 9 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 4b, which was placed behind the mussel lines and in front of the seaweed lines at a depth which simulates 10 m. Again at this location we see that the flow behind the mussel lines is very uniform even when measurements are taken at 50 cm intervals every minutes. There is very little variability in the data points and with the p value= 0 again this states that there is a relationship between the speed of the flow and flow over the current meters. Also, this is backed up by the R-squared value being 99.6% which means that 99.6% of the variability of the data can be accredited too the speed of the flow. With such a high percentage for the R-squared we again expect to see a low standard deviation value which is 0.68. In figure 10 of the results section we are comparing the different speeds to the flow over the current meter, swoffer 2b, which was placed behind the mussel lines and in front of the seaweed lines at a depth which simulates 7.5 m. Again in this plot we see a clear linear relationship between the speed of the

flow and the flow over the current meters. This is once again backed up by a p value of 0 which states the clear relationship between speed of the flow and flow over the current meter. Again a high R-squared value is obtained, 99.9%, this states that we can be 99.9 % confident that the variability of the data points are a result of variations in the flow speed. Also, once again we have a very insignificant s value of 0.295 which will not give a large deviation from the data points. From these figures we can drawl the clear conclusion that the speed of flow over the IMTA structures is directly related to the initial flow speed. Even if the IMTA structures provide inference it is very insignificant and will not have great implications in the distribution of nutrients or flows between the different components of the IMTA system. This statement is backed up when referencing figures 11-15 which are visual representations of the speed of the flow over the current meters in relation to a single flow speed. For example refer to figure 11 which compares the flow at speed 30 cm/s to the flows over the different flow meters. At this speed the flow over swoffer 11 was 13.5 cm/s, now refer to figure 12 which gives flow at 40 cm/s and we see that flow is 18 cm/s at swoffer 11 which gives a difference of 4.5 cm/s. Now refer to figure 13 which gives a visual of flow at 50 cm/s at this speed the flow over swoffer 11 is 22.5 cm/s which again is an increase of 4.5 cm/s. If you follow the speed of flow over the swoffers from 30 cm/s- 70cm/s it is clear that the increments between each position is similar or the same. This allows the conclusion to be made that the disruption in the flow that is caused by the IMTA structures is a constant and can be predicted.