More animals were found at the beaches than in the forest. A ratio of 0:5 indicates a strong preference for animals to hang out in beached areas.
More plants were found in the forests than at the beaches. Although this ratio isn't as prominent as the animal one (14:8), it still shows that plants grow more in forests than at beaches.
I have two hypotheses for why animals may be found at beaches more than in the forest:
One reason animals could be more prevalent at beaches is resource availability. This is more relevant for White Rock Beach than Tower Beach. At White Rock Beach, there are a lot of food vendors. People will take this food to the beach area, where animals such as gulls will lie in wait for people to drop it. Furthermore, there is a large source of water available to the animals: the ocean. These two reasons could explain why animals are the beach more than the forests.
Another reason could be the security. This is a reason that applies more to Tower Beach than White Rock Beach. People are walking around the forests and trails more often than they come down to the beach. So, animals may go into hiding during the times when the trails are open to the public. However, at the beach, despite the large amount of people, they are predictable. People tend to just sit down, and almost all the animals observed were birds. These birds could more easily fly away from danger at beaches than the forests.
I have 2 hypotheses for why plants are found at forests more than the beaches
It is possible that the soil in the forests has more nutrients than sand. This hypothesis is also supported in the fact that most of the plants found were found in dirt, not sand, regardless of their underlying area.
Like animals, plants will gather where there is more security. For plants, this could mean less animals. The beach has more animals, which would be a deterrent for plants to grow. Whereas the forest has many fewer animals, which means that there would be less detrimental interactions between plants and animals.