* P1.2c-Trees at higher elevations--particularly tall trees--suffer more because they are more exposed. Thus, elevation has additive or interactive effect with that of height (model with height + / * elevation better predictor than just height.)
I modified the text accordingly. Could you please modify the code as needed?
The reasons are that (1) you've expressed that you don't think there's enough topographic variation relative to the surrounding landscape for there to be much of an effect. I agree. (2) there's no significant effect, and I noticed that elevation drops out of the most recent best model (here). Further, the effect is in the opposite direction expected, as is the interaction. Thus, including this hypothesis just makes the story unnecessarily complex.
I do think we should keep H1.3. We detect little to no effect of elevation, but this is significant in that it shows limited role of proximity to water.
mcgregorian1
commented
5 years ago
@mcgregorian1,
I think we should remove this hypothesis:
* P1.2c-Trees at higher elevations--particularly tall trees--suffer more because they are more exposed. Thus, elevation has additive or interactive effect with that of height (model with height + / * elevation better predictor than just height.)I modified the text accordingly. Could you please modify the code as needed?
The reasons are that (1) you've expressed that you don't think there's enough topographic variation relative to the surrounding landscape for there to be much of an effect. I agree. (2) there's no significant effect, and I noticed that elevation drops out of the most recent best model (here). Further, the effect is in the opposite direction expected, as is the interaction. Thus, including this hypothesis just makes the story unnecessarily complex.
I do think we should keep H1.3. We detect little to no effect of elevation, but this is significant in that it shows limited role of proximity to water.