lba...@montana.edu wrote:
Hello,

I have some conflicting output from an aov summary and tukey contrasts
with a mixed effects model I was hoping someone could clarify.  I am
comparing the abundance of a species across three willow stand types. Since I have 2 or 3 sites within a habitat I have included site as a
random effect in the lme model.  My confusion is that the F test given by
aov(model) indicates there is no difference between habitats, but the
tukey contrasts using the multcomp package shows that one pair of habits
is significantly different from each other. Why is there a discrepancy? Have I specified my model correctly? I included the code and output
below.  Thank you.

Looks like glht() is ignoring degrees of freedom. So what it does is wrong but it is not easy to do it right (whatever "right" is in these cases). If I understand correctly, what you have is that "stand" is strictly coarser than "site", presumably the stands representing each 2, 2, and 3 sites, with a varying number of replications within each site. Since the between-site variation is considered random, you end up with a comparison of stands based on essentially only 7 pieces of information. (The latter statement requires some qualification, but let's not go there to day.)

If you have roughly equal replications within each site, I'd be strongly tempted to reduce the analysis to a simple 1-way ANOVA of the site averages.


co.lme=lme(coye~stand,data=t,random=~1|site)
summary (co.lme)

Linear mixed-effects model fit by REML
 Data: R
       AIC      BIC    logLik
  53.76606 64.56047 -21.88303

Random effects:
 Formula: ~1 | site
        (Intercept)  Residual
StdDev:   0.3122146 0.2944667

Fixed effects: coye ~ stand
                 Value Std.Error DF    t-value p-value
(Intercept)  0.4936837 0.2305072 60  2.1417277  0.0363
stand2       0.4853222 0.3003745  4  1.6157240  0.1815
stand3      -0.3159230 0.3251201  4 -0.9717117  0.3862
 Correlation:
       (Intr) stand2
stand2 -0.767
stand3 -0.709  0.544

Standardized Within-Group Residuals:
       Min         Q1        Med         Q3        Max
-2.4545673 -0.5495609 -0.3148274  0.7527378  2.5151476

Number of Observations: 67
Number of Groups: 7

anova(co.lme)
            numDF denDF   F-value p-value
(Intercept)     1    60 23.552098  <.0001
stand           2     4  3.738199  0.1215

summary(glht(co.lme,linfct=mcp(stand="Tukey")))

         Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses

Multiple Comparisons of Means: Tukey Contrasts


Fit: lme.formula(fixed = coye ~ stand, data = R, random = ~1 | site)

Linear Hypotheses:
           Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
2 - 1 == 0   0.4853     0.3004   1.616   0.2385
3 - 1 == 0  -0.3159     0.3251  -0.972   0.5943
3 - 2 == 0  -0.8012     0.2994  -2.676   0.0202 *
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Adjusted p values reported -- single-step method)



Lisa Baril
Masters Candidate
Department of Ecology
Montana State University - Bozeman
406.994.2670

______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.


--
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph:  (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk)              FAX: (+45) 35327907

______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.

Reply via email to