Skip to content
Prev 303 / 20628 Next

explaining lme variance component results

Mike,

I find asinh(x/2) to be an interesting (more palatable?) alternative
to log(x+1).

A couple of other comments inserted below:

Kevin Wright
On 9/3/07, Mike Dunbar <mdu at ceh.ac.uk> wrote:
In my experience with biological data, factors that have levels that
are widely (temporal/spatial) separated are often more variable than
factors with levels that are closer together.  In your data, I would
(a priori) expect MONTH is more likely to be significant than POLE.

Have you plotted this data?  I often find dotplots very useful for
exploring/understanding data that have a few factors.  For example:

levels(temp$MONTH) <- paste("Mo",levels(temp$MONTH),sep="")
levels(temp$POLE) <- paste("Po",levels(temp$POLE),sep="")
levels(temp$TRANSECT) <- paste("Tr",levels(temp$TRANSECT),sep="")
levels(temp$TIME) <- paste("Ti",levels(temp$TIME),sep="")

# Time2 and Time3 have big differences between months
dotplot(TRANSECT~y|TIME*MONTH, data=temp)
# Pole-to-pole variation is often small
dotplot(POLE~y|MONTH*TIME*TRANSECT, data=temp,
        scales=list(y=list(cex=.5,relation="free")))

I often try many different arrangements of the panels/lines to find
the most informative view.

The zero values of insectdens look odd, given the
not-so-unlike-Gaussian distribution of the other values.