{"title":"虫、病、草丰度和发病率数据分析统计模型的评价","authors":"G. Sileshi","doi":"10.4314/EAJSCI.V1I1.40335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been a fundamental method used for analysis of abundance and incidence data. However, abundance and incidence data often violate the assumptions of ANOVA. Researchers often ignore ANOVA assumptions, transform the data using arbitrarily chosen functions and then fail to evaluate whether or not the transformation actually corrected the problem. The statistical power of the tests used is also seldom reported. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to demonstrate (1) implications of using arbitrarily chosen transformations and ANOVA to the validity of statistical inference on pest abundance and incidence and (2) the application of LMMs and GLMs for efficient analysis of such data. Abundance data were analyzed assuming normal, Poisson and negative binomial error distributions. Incidence data were analyzed assuming normal and binomial error distributions. Among the data transformation functions, logarithmic transformation gave better description of abundance data compared with square root. Working logits were better than angular or square root transformation of incidence data. The study has also demonstrated that the choice of transformation can influence the statistical significance and power of test. Transformation of either abundance or incidence data did not necessarily ensure normality or variance homogeneity. According to the Akaike information criterion (AIC), a GLM assuming negative binomial error distribution was better for description of most abundance datasets compared with a GLM assuming Poisson error distribution or LMM. LMM based on working logits also gave a better description of the data than a GLM assuming binomial distribution. It is concluded that LMMs and GLMs simultaneously consider the effect of treatments and heterogeneity of variance and hence are more appropriate for analysis of abundance and incidence data than ordinary ANOVA. Keywords : Mixed Models; Generalized Linear Models; Statistical Power East African Journal of Sciences Vol. 1 (1) 2007: pp. 1-9","PeriodicalId":33393,"journal":{"name":"East African Journal of Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/EAJSCI.V1I1.40335","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Statistical Models for Analysis of Insect, Disease and Weed Abundance and Incidence Data\",\"authors\":\"G. Sileshi\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/EAJSCI.V1I1.40335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been a fundamental method used for analysis of abundance and incidence data. However, abundance and incidence data often violate the assumptions of ANOVA. Researchers often ignore ANOVA assumptions, transform the data using arbitrarily chosen functions and then fail to evaluate whether or not the transformation actually corrected the problem. The statistical power of the tests used is also seldom reported. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to demonstrate (1) implications of using arbitrarily chosen transformations and ANOVA to the validity of statistical inference on pest abundance and incidence and (2) the application of LMMs and GLMs for efficient analysis of such data. Abundance data were analyzed assuming normal, Poisson and negative binomial error distributions. Incidence data were analyzed assuming normal and binomial error distributions. Among the data transformation functions, logarithmic transformation gave better description of abundance data compared with square root. Working logits were better than angular or square root transformation of incidence data. The study has also demonstrated that the choice of transformation can influence the statistical significance and power of test. Transformation of either abundance or incidence data did not necessarily ensure normality or variance homogeneity. According to the Akaike information criterion (AIC), a GLM assuming negative binomial error distribution was better for description of most abundance datasets compared with a GLM assuming Poisson error distribution or LMM. LMM based on working logits also gave a better description of the data than a GLM assuming binomial distribution. It is concluded that LMMs and GLMs simultaneously consider the effect of treatments and heterogeneity of variance and hence are more appropriate for analysis of abundance and incidence data than ordinary ANOVA. Keywords : Mixed Models; Generalized Linear Models; Statistical Power East African Journal of Sciences Vol. 1 (1) 2007: pp. 1-9\",\"PeriodicalId\":33393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East African Journal of Sciences\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/EAJSCI.V1I1.40335\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East African Journal of Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/EAJSCI.V1I1.40335\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East African Journal of Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/EAJSCI.V1I1.40335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
摘要
方差分析(ANOVA)一直是分析丰度和发生率数据的基本方法。然而,丰度和发生率数据往往违背方差分析的假设。研究人员经常忽略方差分析假设,使用任意选择的函数转换数据,然后无法评估转换是否实际上纠正了问题。所使用的测试的统计能力也很少被报道。因此,本文的目的是证明(1)使用任意选择的转换和方差分析对害虫丰度和发病率统计推断的有效性的影响,以及(2)应用lmm和glm对这些数据进行有效分析。丰度数据采用正态分布、泊松分布和负二项误差分布进行分析。发生率数据采用正态和二项误差分布进行分析。在数据变换函数中,对数变换比平方根变换能更好地描述丰度数据。工作对数优于入射数据的角变换或平方根变换。研究还表明,变换的选择会影响检验的统计显著性和有效性。对丰度或发生率数据的转换不一定保证正态性或方差同质性。根据Akaike信息准则(AIC),假设负二项误差分布的GLM比假设泊松误差分布的GLM或LMM更能描述大多数丰度数据集。基于工作逻辑的LMM也比假设二项分布的GLM能更好地描述数据。综上所述,lmm和GLMs同时考虑了治疗的影响和方差的异质性,因此比普通方差分析更适合分析丰度和发生率数据。关键词:混合模型;广义线性模型;统计力量东非科学杂志Vol. 1 (1) 2007: pp. 1-9
Evaluation of Statistical Models for Analysis of Insect, Disease and Weed Abundance and Incidence Data
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been a fundamental method used for analysis of abundance and incidence data. However, abundance and incidence data often violate the assumptions of ANOVA. Researchers often ignore ANOVA assumptions, transform the data using arbitrarily chosen functions and then fail to evaluate whether or not the transformation actually corrected the problem. The statistical power of the tests used is also seldom reported. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to demonstrate (1) implications of using arbitrarily chosen transformations and ANOVA to the validity of statistical inference on pest abundance and incidence and (2) the application of LMMs and GLMs for efficient analysis of such data. Abundance data were analyzed assuming normal, Poisson and negative binomial error distributions. Incidence data were analyzed assuming normal and binomial error distributions. Among the data transformation functions, logarithmic transformation gave better description of abundance data compared with square root. Working logits were better than angular or square root transformation of incidence data. The study has also demonstrated that the choice of transformation can influence the statistical significance and power of test. Transformation of either abundance or incidence data did not necessarily ensure normality or variance homogeneity. According to the Akaike information criterion (AIC), a GLM assuming negative binomial error distribution was better for description of most abundance datasets compared with a GLM assuming Poisson error distribution or LMM. LMM based on working logits also gave a better description of the data than a GLM assuming binomial distribution. It is concluded that LMMs and GLMs simultaneously consider the effect of treatments and heterogeneity of variance and hence are more appropriate for analysis of abundance and incidence data than ordinary ANOVA. Keywords : Mixed Models; Generalized Linear Models; Statistical Power East African Journal of Sciences Vol. 1 (1) 2007: pp. 1-9