1 / 33

An exploration of the relationship between productivity and diversity in British Grasslands

An exploration of the relationship between productivity and diversity in British Grasslands. Adam Butler & Jan Heffernan, Lancaster University Department of Mathematics & Statistics Simon Smart, CEH Monkswood. Introduction. Context: Productivity-diversity relationships

palma
Download Presentation

An exploration of the relationship between productivity and diversity in British Grasslands

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. An exploration of the relationship between productivity and diversity in British Grasslands Adam Butler & Jan Heffernan, Lancaster University Department of Mathematics & Statistics Simon Smart, CEH Monkswood

  2. Introduction • Context: Productivity-diversity relationships • Motivation: reconstructing and preserving diverse ecosystems. • Previous work: A unimodal relationship is widespread.

  3. The unimodal relationship • Maximum diversity is obtained at intermediate productivity. • Lower limb: An increase in productivity leads to an increase in diversity. • Upper limb: Beyond a certain point, increasing productivity leads to a decrease in diversity. • Explanations: Lower-limb easy to explain, upper limb far harder.

  4. Oksanen’s intervention

  5. Our aims • We try to overcome Oksanen’s objections: • Our dataset is large (n = 1647). • Our dataset uses large quadrats (200m2). • Our dataset contains information on nested quadrats. • We compare the no-interaction model to alternative parametric and nonparametric models. • We investigate heterogeneity.

  6. Our dataset • Countryside Survey 2000. • Modified form of stratfied random sampling. • Grassland plots only. • Nested quadrats: 4m2,25m2,50m2 and 100m2 • Diversity: Species richness. • Productivity: Mean Ellenberg fertility score.

  7. Statistical methods • The impact of quadrat area: nonparametric regression models. • Testing the no-interaction model: parametric models. • Identifying plot heterogeneity: ANOVA. Resampling methods are needed to assess variability in all 3 cases...

  8. Statistical models

  9. The no-interaction model

  10. Generalizing the no-interaction model • We use a proxy for biomass. • We introduce an intercept term. • We use a full inverse quadratic term above the crowding point. • Increases number of parameters from 3 to 6. • Includes Oksanen’s model as a special case. • Enables a far wider range of behaviour. • Need not follow from Oksanen’s assumptions.

  11. Other parametric models MODELS • Normal and Poisson polynomial regression models • Beta response model • Huisman-Olff-Fresco (HOF) models MODEL FITTING Maximum likelihood estimation

  12. Non-parametric regression models • General model: • Advantage: Largely data-driven, make less stringent assumptions. • Disadvantage: Largely descriptive, difficult to draw formal inferences

  13. The local linear regression estimator FORM OF ESTIMATOR ADVANTAGES • Can be viewed as a generalization of simple linear regression • Degree of bias is independent of data density • Does not suffer from excessive bias at the edge of the covariate space

  14. Assessing variability

  15. Application of resampling methods • Analytic results are not available, so resampling methods are used to assess variability. • They are used to construct confidence intervals for nonparametric regression estimators. • Also used to construct reference bands about fitted parametric models. • Comparing parametric reference bands to a nonparametric regression estimator gives an assessment of model adequacy for parametric models.

  16. Confidence intervals for LLR estimators • Problems with bias • Pointwise confidence intervals • Bootstrap confidence intervals

  17. Algorithm to construct reference bands [1] Fit an LLR estimator to the observed data. [2] Fit the parametric model to the data, and calculate fitted values, I, for each site. [3] For the ith site, simulate d times from a Poisson(I) distribution. [4] By simulating data for all sites, construct d simulated datasets. [5] Fit LLR estimators to each of the d resampled datasets. [6] Compare LLR estimator for observed data to that for resampled datasets.

  18. Results and conclusions

  19. Limitations • Use of mean Ellenberg scores as a proxy for fertility. • Lack of information on abundance. • Lack of scientifically motivated statistical models. • Can the results be used to infer the effect of changing productivity upon diversity ?

  20. Conclusions • Unimodal relationship is present. • Overdispersion. • Strength of the relationship increases with quadrat area. • Impact of plot heterogeneity appears to be negligible. • Interpretation of model fit. • Statistical interest: a new application of resampling methods and nonparametric regression.

  21. Minitab Macros for resampling methods Adam Butler, Lancaster University Peter Rothery & David Roy, CEH Monks Wood

  22. Introduction • Minitab is a commonly used environment for teaching statistics • Minitab has a wide variety of built in functions, but in some areas is severely lacking • A library of Minitab macros to perform resampling versions of standard Minitab functions.

  23. Content • Follow the approach in Manly (1997) • Focus on creating resampling versions of standard Minitab functions • Focus on randomization as a means of resampling • Focus on hypothesis testing • Devise some more sophisticated macros, related to bootstrap confidence intervals and spatial statistics.

  24. Spatial statistics • Tests for spatial autocorrelation • Mantel test for correlation between two matrices • Construction of EDF plots • Monte Carlo tests using inter-event distances • Mead’s randomization test

  25. Running the macros • Invoke from the session window. • Where possible, names are very similar to the names of existing Minitab functions • Names distinguish clearly between randomization, bootstrapping and Monte Carlo methods. • Output is reasonably short, and of a similar form to standard Minitab output. • Subcommands may be used to store additional output.

  26. Availability • Macros can be accessed from the CEH products and services website at http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products-services • Macros have also been submitted to the Minitab macro library. • Documentation is provided online. • Sample data and worked examples are provided online.

More Related