Timeline for Which test do I use to estimate the preference of species?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 hours ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| 10 hours ago | answer | added | jginestet | timeline score: 2 | |
| 10 hours ago | comment | added | Nick Cox | The word preference does not seem quite right scientifically. Perhaps certain species perform well or not so well under certain managements; even those wordings have anthropomorphic overtones. | |
| 13 hours ago | history | edited | EdM | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatted table
|
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | Christian Hennig | Information on number of raster cells is still missing as far as I can see. The distribution of management styles may also be informative as the power that any test can have may depend on it. Furthermore I don't quite understand why you think reducing abundance information to presence/absence is appropriate and useful. | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | Christian Hennig | Any reason why glm_per_species doesn't use Code? If Code makes a difference (and management isn't strictly nested within it, not sure whether that's the case) I think it should be taken into account also at species level. Note further that any modelling that doesn't use spatial information will ignore potential dependences from the neighbourhood structure of raster cells. Furthermore, there may be interactions between species, which are ignored if you model a single species separately. (I'm not saying all this can be incorporated easily...) | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | PBulls | One issue that is apparent to me (but I am not an ecologist) is that you seem to be modelling probability of presence with absent species contributing just a single failed trial. This should probably be some kind of rate instead, with either the species count per area or the probability of finding a species every time a study area was surveyed as response. | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | Nick Cox | Please edit the question with your helpful new comments. An edited question is easier to read (and easier to edit too). | |
| 14 hours ago | history | edited | fleur | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 213 characters in body
|
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | fleur | hi, yes preference means whether a species prefers a certain management type, so if that species occurs significantly more in a certain type than another. So to test this i would want a kind of pairewise comparison of ocurrances for each management. The only problem is, that not every species is present in all management types. SOORTCODE here is the species code, so a shortened version of their name. I only have presence data (i.e. where species were observed). I do not have true absences — I inferred absences later when constructing a presence–absence dataset. | |
| 15 hours ago | history | edited | Nick Cox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body; edited title
|
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | Christian Hennig | Preference means whether a species prefers a certain management style? What is SOORTCODE? For those who don't work with the tidyverse much, showing how the resulting data (including size, no idea how many raster cells there are) look like would help. Standard errors and p-values can be high because of low effective sample size, but I can't tell easily. | |
| 15 hours ago | history | edited | EdM | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatted code, other minor edits
|
| S 20 hours ago | review | First questions | |||
| 18 hours ago | |||||
| S 20 hours ago | history | asked | fleur | CC BY-SA 4.0 |