Table 2.
The level of significance for local spatial association analysis for water quality and trend
| Station | Significance level of COD concentration | Significance level of NH3-N concentration | Significance level of Sen’s slope of COD | Significance level of Sen’s slope of NH3-N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | |
| Chenqiao | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 0.58 | 0.99 |
| Huangfuzhai | 0.30 | 0.23 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| Baisha | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.42 |
| Yangzhaizhong | 0.86 | 0.72 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.44 |
| Yewu | 0.06 (LH) | 0.09 (LH) | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.67 | 0.60 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
| Mawan | 0.38 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.28 | 0.23 |
| Luodengqiao | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.51 |
| Lifen | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
| Gaocunqiao | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 0.80 |
| Taochengzha | 0.48 | 0.56 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.99 | 0.55 | 0.89 | 0.97 |
| WuLiuzha | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.09 (LH) | 0.16 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.32 | 0.36 |
| Zhifang | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.44 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 0.62 |
| Dawangzhuang | 0.79 | 0.95 | 0.06 (HH) | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.56 | 0.05 (LL) | 0.21 |
| Baidukou | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.64 | 0.67 |
| Chengwan | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.78 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.40 | 0.57 |
| Qianxiangwan | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.03 (HH) | 0.00 (HH) | 0.00 (LL) | 0.72 | 0.00 (LL) | 0.02 (LL) |
| Zhidian | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
A statistic in italic mean the station is the center of a cluster, or an outlier, for water quality statistics with significance level less than 0.1. LH, HH and LL represent “low–high”, “high–high” and “low–low” spatial pattern