Hi Sara,
If this is the case, you should have the same problem when using
Treatment + Bud_Type instead of Treatment * Bud_Type. Is it the case ?
When ? checking per species ?, you mean you studied each row of this
table separatly and for each of them, constructed the
species:treatment contingency table and saw that in each cell there
were several observations (at least 3 or 4)?
something like by( Bud_type, table( Species, Treatment ) )...
After that... I must say I have no further idea.
Best regards,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:05:32PM +0100, PALACIO BLASCO, SARA wrote:
?
? Below you can see the contingency table for Treatment*Bud_type with
? the observations in each combination. As you can see the design is
? not balanced but there are no combinations with particularly few
? observations. I have checked this table per species and (taking into
? account that each species only has one Bud_type), all treatment
? levels have a representative number of observations...
?
? Treatment
? Bud_type-80 -34.7 -30.2 -26.3 -22.1 -17.2 -13.1 -6.6 4 Total
? hy 42 45 47 47 54 71 79 64 39 488
? na 24 31 30 34 30 30 30 30 24 263
? sc 62 71 72 68 71 82 69 78 62 635
? Total 128 147 149 149 155 183 178 172 125 1386
?
?
? The only issue I can see is that of each species only having one
Bud_type...
?
? Thanks for your help!
?
? sara palacio
--
Emmanuel CURIS
emmanuel.curis at parisdescartes.fr
Page WWW: http://emmanuel.curis.online.fr/index.html