Statistical significance versus fit: estimating the importance of individual factors in ecological analysis of variance

By M. Graham, M. Edwards. 2001

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Environmental Chemistry, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/792a8ac56f155fc7cfd8bb2e64f66fdae90c39f6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

1. S. Connell
2. T. Elsdon
3. M. Hixon
4. J. Emmett Duffy
5. Peter Clarke
6. Geoffrey P. Jones
7. J. Bruno
8. K. McMahon

In Environmental Chemistry

1. T. Elsdon
2. M. Hixon
3. J. Emmett Duffy
4. Peter Clarke
5. S. Connell
6. Geoffrey P. Jones
7. K. McMahon
8. P. Nichols

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. J. Bruno
2. M. Hixon
3. S. Connell
4. J. Emmett Duffy
5. T. Elsdon
6. Andrew Revill
7. Zachary T. Long
8. Peter Clarke

Citations in the corpus

• Expansive covers of turf-forming algae on human-dominated coast: the relative effects of increasing nutrient and sediment loads (2004, methodology): “X 2 transformation was used to meet assumptions of homogeneity of data (Cochran’s C-test) All factors were treated as fixed and orthogonal The magnitude of effects (x 2 ) were calculated for each of the three factors tested (Vaughan and Corballis 1969; Graham and Edwards 2001 ) ns Not significant (”
• The effects of seed predators on the recruitment of mangroves (2002, methodology): “The methods used follow standard approaches in statistical tests and follow the recommendations of Graham (2001) with respect to negative variance estimates common in nested designs.”
• Morphology of Ecklonia radiata (Phaeophyta: Laminarales) along its geographic distribution in south-western Australia and Australasia (2003, background): “Further, the total variation was decomposed and partitioned into the relative contribution from each level of nesting, and the relative magnitude of effect (x(2)) was calculated (Graham and Edwards 2001).”
• Habitat complexity and consumer‐mediated positive feedbacks on a Caribbean coral reef (2006, background): “Magnitudes of density and structure treatment effects (032) were estimated by determining the fraction of variation in macroalgal cover explained by each factor relative to total variation (Graham and Edwards 2001).”
• Partitioning the effects of algal species identity and richness on benthic marine primary production (2006, methodology): “We also calculated the magnitude of effects (v2, the relative contribution expressed as the percentage of the total variance) for the richness and identity factors (Kirk 1995, Graham and Edwards 2001).”
• COMPETITION, PREDATION, AND DENSITY-DEPENDENT MORTALITY IN DEMERSAL MARINE FISHES (2005, methodology): “Interpretation of outcomes can be facilitated statistically by examining the relative magnitude of density vs. predation effects (Graham and Edwards 2001).”
• Experimental evaluation of stable isotope fractionation in fish muscle and otoliths (2010, methodology): “We used ANOVA and permutational multivariate ANOVA (PERMANOVA) to determine if diet treatments differed, and variance components (Vaughan & Corballis 1969, Graham & Edwards 2001) to estimate the magnitude of effect explained by differences among diets.”
• Allochthonous brown algae are the primary food source for consumers in a temperate, coastal environment (2009, background): “We were most interested in determining which source was associated with the greatest amount of variability, and focussed on magnitudes of effects (ω2) because, unlike p-values, this does not depend directly on the degrees of freedom (Graham & Edwards 2001).”