# How would you interpret this scatter plot?

The number of eggs oviposited based on plant height shows that there is a significant correlation. However, I am finding it difficult to understand whether it is the lower plant height that allows more eggs to be oviposited or whether it is the larger plant height that does this. I am fairly new to statistics so I'm having some trouble here.

• (1) All you wrote seems to refer to the second plot, so why is the first one there? (2) "The number of eggs oviposited based on plant height shows that there is a significant correlation." What exactly did you do to know it's "significant"? (3) In the second plot there are separate lines for "Veluwe1", "Veluwe2", and "Luttengergerven". Two of them go up, one goes down. Are these three kinds of observations meant to be analysed separately or together? If separately, what exactly does the question refer to? If together, what is the role of the three different lines? Commented Oct 22, 2021 at 13:28
• If you're just interested in the single correlation, a positive correlation means that the eggs have a tendency to go up with height, a negative correlation means that they have a tendency to become lower with higher height. There's however so much more in your plots and question that I don't really believe that this is what you wanted to know!? Commented Oct 22, 2021 at 13:31
• Hi Christian. Thanks so much for your input. I used a Generalised Linear Mixed Model to assess significance. And the result was that plant height is significantly correlated to egg oviposition in the three study areas. I then plotted the data to visualise whether higher plant height meant greater oviposition or vice versa. My problem has been with interpreting this based on the graph output. Please ignore the first graph, as I forgot to crop it. I've now amended that. Commented Oct 22, 2021 at 13:41
• Then please, edit the Q to show us your analysis! Commented Oct 22, 2021 at 13:56
• The post has now been edited to show the results of the analysis. My apologies, the test was Spearman's Correlation and not GLMM. Commented Oct 22, 2021 at 14:14