Q1_1a:The population mean number of lesions is the same for each treatment within leaf blocks. There is no effect of Treatment within leaf blocks
Q1_1b:The population mean number of lesions is the same for each leaf block. There is no effect of leaf blocks.
Q1_2_1:Normality
Q1_2_2:Boxplots
Q1_2_3:Homogeneity of variance
Q1_2_4:Boxplots, plot of means vs variance, residual plot
Q1_2_5:No interaction between blocking factor and the within block factor
Q1_2_6:Interaction plot
Q1_2_7:Independent observations
Q1_2_8:Observations within each block should be otherwise independent, unbiased. Randomize location of blocks and treatments within blocks.
Q1_3a:No evidence that the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance have been violated for the test of TREATMENT.
Q1_3b:The interaction plot suggests that there is some evidence of an interaction. Although the number of leasions appear to be greater in strongly innoculated leaves than the weakly inocculated leaves in most of the leaf pairs (blocks), this trend is either absent or reversed in two of the eight (1/4) of the leaf pairs. As a result, the test of block may not be reliable, and the power of the main test of treatment. is reduced.
Q1_4e:7
Q1_4f:41.727
Q1_4a:1
Q1_4b:248.339
Q1_4c:17.172
Q1_4d:0.004328
Q1_4i:7
Q1_4j:14.462
Q1_5:Strongly innoculated tobacco leaves were found to have significantly higher mean numbers of lesions than weakly inoculated leaves. Leaf pairs (blocks) explained substantial amounts of the variation and therefore probably contributed to the sensitivity of the main test of treatment - thereby justifying the blocking design over a completely randomised design.
Q2_1a:The population mean difference in number of calling male frogs between burnt and unburnt sites is the same for each year within each block. There is no affect of year (pooled over catchments/blocks) on the population mean difference in number of calling male frogs between burnt and unburnt sites.
Q2_1b:The population mean difference in number of calling male frogs between burnt and unburnt sites is the same in each catchment (block)
Q2_2a:Normality, homogeneity of variance and that there is no interaction between YEAR and BLOCK. That is that the impact of year on the population mean difference in number of calling male frogs between burnt and unburnt sites is consistent for each catchment (block). Finally, there is also the assumption of compound symmetry (not only do the variances between groups need to be equal, but the covariances within groups between blocks need to be equal) or sphericity.
Q2_3a:Boxplots suggest that there is not conclusive evidence to suggest that the populations are not normally distributed or equally variable.
Q2_3b:There is strong evidence to suggest that there might be an interation between years and blocks - that is the affect of year might not be the same in each block.
Q2_3c:Greenhouse Geisser epsilon is low <.75, therefore there is some evidence that compound symmetry/sphericity assumption has been violated. Should use Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted p-value for within block effect (YEAR).
Q2_4e:5
Q2_4f:191.12
Q2_4a:2
Q2_4b:184.72
Q2_4c:9.6601
Q2_4d:0.004615
Q2_4dd:0.01
Q2_4de:0.01
Q2_4i:10
Q2_4j:19.12
Q2_5:Reject the null hypothesis that the population mean difference in number of calling male frogs between burnt and unburnt sites is the same for each year within each block.
Q2_6e:5
Q2_6f:191.12
Q2_6a:1
Q2_6b:352.08
Q2_6c:15.122
Q2_6d:0.01
Q2_6dd:0.02
Q2_6de:0.01
Q2_6i:5
Q2_6j:23.28
Q2_7:There was a significant linear trend in the population mean difference in number of calling male frogs between burnt and unburnt sites accross years.
Q3_1a:The population mean density of worms colonised by each plate are the same for each of the copper treatments.
Q3_1b:The population mean density of worms at each distance from the Cu source within each plate are the same.
Q3_1c:The population mean density of worms at each distance and copper treatment per plate were the same.
Q3_2a:The replicates (residuals) for the test of COPPER are the mean worm densities on whole plates. Therefore assumption tests should use these means as the residuals.
Q3_2b:The replicates for the test of DIST are the overal residuals (the observed densities of worms at each distance/copper treatment within each plate).
Q3_2c:The replicates for the test of COPPER:DIST are the overal residuals (the observed densities of worms at each distance/copper treatment within each plate).
q3_3a:3
q3_3b:6
q3_3c:6
Q3_4c:N
Q3_5:N
Q3_6:N
Q3_7:Y
Q3_8:The full saturated model that includes the replicates (residuals) is WORMS = CONSTANT + COPPER + PLATE + DIST + COPPER:DIST + PLATE:DIST The model that is actually fitted therefore is WORMS = CONSTANT + COPPER + PLATE + DIST + COPPER:DIST
Q3_9a:2
Q3_9b:391.87
Q3_9c:128.02
Q3_9d:<0.001
Q3_9e:12
Q3_9f:3.06
Q3_9i:3
Q3_9j:51.268
Q3_9k:28.3753
Q3_9l:<0.001
Q3_9m:6
Q3_9n:8.903
Q3_9o:4.9276
Q3_9p:<0.001
Q3_9q:36
Q3_9r:1.807
Q3_10:There is a significant interaction between copper and distance on the number of worms colonizing plates.
Q4_1a:The population mean frequency of buccal breathing by each toad are the same for each of the breathing types
Q4_1b:The population mean frequency of buccal breathing at each oxygen concentration within each toad is the same.
Q4_1c:The population mean frequency of buccal breathing at each oxygen concentration and breathing type per toad is the same.
Q4_2a:y
Q4_2b:n
Q4_2c:n
Q4_2d:y
Q4_3a:1
Q4_3b:39.921
Q4_3c:5.7622
Q4_3d:0.02678
Q4_3e:19
Q4_3f:6.928
Q4_3i:7
Q4_3j:5.567
Q4_3k:7.3918
Q4_3l:<0.001
Q4_3_1l:<0.001
Q4_3_2l:<0.001
Q4_3m:7
Q4_3n:8.053
Q4_3o:10.6928
Q4_3p:<0.001
Q4_3_1p:<0.001
Q4_3_2p:<0.001
Q4_3q:133
Q4_3r:0.753
Q4_4:There is a significant interaction between the oxygen level and breathing type on the mean square root transformed frequency of buccal breathing.