Effect of Yearly Average Low Tide on Average Electric Conductivity of the river water

In general, lower tide, higher the electric conductivity in the river water. To prove or to know
the reality of this general opinion in Barguna and atuakhali region, fro! the data range "###
to "#$$, the relation %etween Average &igh Tide and Average Electric Conductivity of the
river water has !easured. 'ith hypothesis testing, it has also !easured the significance of the
relation.
Correlation coefficient(
Correlation coefficient or )ultiple *egression which is denoted %y * refers to the degree of
relationship whose value range is # to +$. ,ear to $ !eans there is a high degree of
relationship %etween varia%les. -ro! the ... output, we get
R = 0.468
This result shows !oderate degree of relationship %etween Average Electric Conductivity of
the *iver and Average Low Tide.
*egression Analysis /Y 0 a + %12
As per regression analysis fro! ... %etween this two ter! 3 Average low Tide and Average
EC of the river water, we get(
Average EC &T 0 $.456 + 7."8 9Average low Tide
* 0 .684
* s:uare 0 ."$5
Ad;usted * 0 .$64
.a!ple Interpretation( If Average low Tide goes down %y $ unit then Average EC &T of the
river water will go up %y .7"8.
Beta Interpretation(
Beta !eans the degree of relationship %etween two o%;ects. &ere, Beta value for Average
&igh Tide is .7"8. The significance of the Beta can %e !easured %y p<value and t<value
Testing.
In 5#= Confidence Level, p<value of Beta is .$#> which is higher than the
significance level .$#. It !eans there is no relationship %etween Average &igh Tide
and Average EC &T.
The t<value for the Beta is $.>?8 which is lower than " /t@"2. It !eans there is no
relationship %etween Average &igh Tide and Average EC &T and it is insignificant.
* .:uared(
* s:uare /*
"
2 0 ."$5 which indicates that "$.5= of the varia%ility in Average EC &T can %e
e1plained %y e1planatory varia%le Average Low Tide. *
"
shows very low e1planatory power
and linearly fits data set.
Effect of Yearly Average &igh Tide on Average Electric Conductivity
of the river water
In general, higher tide, lower the electric conductivity in the river water. To prove or to know
the reality of this general opinion in Barguna and atuakhali region, fro! the data range "###
to "#$$, the relation %etween Average &igh Tide and Average Electric Conductivity of the
river water has !easured. 'ith hypothesis testing, it has also !easured the significance of the
relation.
Correlation coefficient(
Correlation coefficient or )ultiple *egression which is denoted %y * refers to the degree of
relationship whose value range is # to +$. ,ear to $ !eans there is a high degree of
relationship %etween varia%les. -ro! the ... output, we get
R = 0.529
This result shows !oderate degree of relationship %etween Average Electric Conductivity of
the *iver and Average &igh Tide.
*egression Analysis /Y 0 a + %12
As per regression analysis fro! ... %etween this two ter! 3 Average &igh Tide and
Average EC of the river water, we get(
Average EC &T 0 ".?77 < .##"9Average &igh Tide
* 0 .?"5
* s:uare 0 ."4#
Ad;usted * 0 ."$6
.a!ple Interpretation( If Average &igh Tide goes up %y $ unit then Average EC &T of the
river water will go down %y .##".
Beta Interpretation(
Beta !eans the degree of relationship %etween two o%;ects. &ere, Beta value for Average
&igh Tide is <.##". The significance of the Beta can %e !easured %y p<value and t<value
Testing.
In 5#= Confidence Level, p<value of Beta is .#87 which is lower than the significance
level .$#. It !eans there is relationship %etween Average &igh Tide and Average EC
&T and it is significant.
The t<value for the Beta is 3 ".#8> which is greater than " /tA"2. It !eans there is
relationship %etween Average &igh Tide and Average EC &T and it is significant.
* .:uared(
* .:uared /*"2 is a !easure of 3
Bverall goodness of fit of the !odel.
E1planatory power of the !odel indicating how closely the ABC e1cess return is
associated with )arket, Inflation and *etail .ales.
It represents whether the !odel fits the real data set
*" 0 $ represents linearly fits the data set
&ere, * s:uare /*
"
2 0 ."4 which indicates that "4= of the varia%ility in Average EC &T can
%e e1plained %y e1planatory varia%le Average &igh Tide. *
"
shows very low e1planatory
power and linearly fits data set.
Cecision
There is lower or actually no effect on Electric .alinity of the river fro! Average &igh Tide
and Average Low Tide in this region.
Average &igh Tide has very low effect on .alinity which is .##" of .alinity decreases due per
unit increase in Average &igh Tide.
*elationship %etween .alinity and Average low average is insignificant, !eans there is no
relationship.
Effect of Average Rainfall (Monthly) on Electric Conductivity (EC)
In general, we know that higher the rainfall, lower the electric conductivity in river water, so
will does for the salinity. &igher rainfall washes away the salinity fro! river.
To see the relationship data is collected for $7 years period in four area of Barguna and
atuakhali 3 Ba!na, Barguna, Dalachipa, atharghata.
All the statistical result of correlation and regression analysis for these 6 area has given in one
ta%le to show result at a glance.
Regression Model
-ro! the ... results, we get the regression line for each area, show %elow(
Ba!na( EC 0 7$>.44 < .#7? 9 Average *ainfall
Barguna( EC 0 74?.7$? < .#"? 9 Average *ainfall
Dalachipa( EC 0 775.657 < .#$4 9 Average *ainfall
atharghata( EC 0 68>.#47 < .$#8 9 Average *ainfall
-ro! all 6 area, we see the relationship %etween Average *ainfall and Electric Conductivity
is negative which !eans if Average *ainfall increased %y $ unit then Electric Conductivity
will decrease %y .#7? /Ba!na2, .#"? /Barguna2, .#$4 /Dalachipa2 and .$#8 /atharghata2.
But whether this %eta coefficient or the overall relationship is significant or not can %e
!easured hypothesis testing.
Our assumptions are:
Confidence level 0 5#= /!eans value of p<value lower than .$# is accepted2
t<test 0 if t<value A " then accepted.
-<test 0 if -<value @ .$# then accepted.
Particulars Bamna Barguna alachipa Patharghata
Beta Coefficient <#.#7? <#.#"? <#.#$4 <#.$#8
p!value .#58 .$#" .### .###
t!value <$.8>8 <$.865 <6.#>5 <8.#"$
Comment t@" E p is near .
$# which !ean
relationship is
insignificant
t@" E pA .$
which !ean
relationship is
insignificant
tA" E p @ .$
which !ean
relationship
is significant
tA" E p @ .$
which !ean
relationship is
significant
Correlation coefficient #.$6? #.$67 #.77> #.68>
R!s"uare #.#"$ #.#"# #.$$7 #."$4
Ad#usted R!s"uare #.#$6 #.#$7 #.$#> #."$"
Comment ".$= of EC can
%e e1plained %y
*ainfall which
very low
$6.$= of EC
can %e
e1plained %y
*ainfall which
77.>= of EC
can %e
e1plained %y
*ainfall
68.>= of EC
can %e
e1plained %y
*ainfall which
relationship. indicates very
low
relationship.
which low
relationship.
!oderate
relationship.
$!test #.#58 .$#" .### .###
Comment Bverall !odel
fit is
insignificant
Bverall !odel
fit is
insignificant
Bverall
!odel fit is
significant
Bverall !odel
fit is
significant

$rom hypothesis testing %e can ta&e theses decision:
In Ba!na and Barguna the relationship %etween EC and *ainfall is totally
insignificant, whichn !eans rainfall has no effect on *iver EC.
In Dalachipa the relationship %etween EC and *ainfall is negative and fro!
hypothesis testing the relationship is significant. But *ainfall could only e1plain
77.>= of EC up<down in Dalachipa area.
In athargata the relationship %etween EC and *ainfall is higher than the other 7
areas. &ere the relationship is also negative and fro! hypothesis testing the
relationship is significant. *ainfall could !oderately e1plain the EC up<down in
Dalachipa area which is 68.>=