Dear Achaz Two suggestions: If you include the extra lake level predictors and they are significant then you will reduce the magnitude of the lake random effect, and hence you may improve the estimation of the fish effect which is also at the lake level. I'm guessing that reducing the lake random effect won't affect the testing of the month and year factors. Secondly, if you didn't have any lake-level predictors that you were interested in a priori then it simply depends on whether you are interested in the magitude of these additional effects on the zooplankton, if you are then include them, if not then their effects will be mopped up into the random effect. regards Mike Dunbar
Achaz von Hardenberg <fauna at pngp.it> 23/01/2008 12:22 >>>
Dear all, I am analyzing data regarding the effects of introduced fish on the biodiversity of 12 alpine lakes. I have 6 lakes with fish and 6 without and my dependent variables are various repeated density measurements of zooplankton taxa. As we repeated the biodiversity measurements twice a year for two years (2006 and 2007) I am analyzing this data with the lme function of the nlme package with lake identity as random grouping factor (random = ~1|as.factor(Cod)), and the presence/absence of fish as fixed effect. I included also the year and month of sampling as fixed effects. The full model specification is the following: zoopcrost.lme<-lme(Logcrostacei~as.factor(year)+as.factor(month) +as.factor(fish),method="ML", random=~1|as.factor(Cod), data=zooplankton, na.action=na.omit) Now, I have a doubt.... The lakes differ among each other for some physical characteristics such as altitude, maximum depth etc....Obviously these parameters do not vary within each sampling as they are specific for each lake (they do not vary from one year to the next or from one month to the next) but they may have an influence on the densities of zooplankton taxa, regardless of the presence/absence of introduced fish. Should I nonetheless consider these variables among the fixed effects? Or should the fact that I impose the lake identity as grouping factor take care of the fact that there are individual differences among the lakes? Sorry for possibly a naive question and thank you for your help! Dr. Achaz von Hardenberg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- Centro Studi Fauna Alpina - Alpine Wildlife Research Centre Servizio Sanitario e della Ricerca Scientifica Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso, Degioz, 11, 11010-Valsavarenche (Ao), Italy ----------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient ...{{dropped:6}}