mcgregorian1
commented
4 years ago Table 4- individual predictor tests
- [x] @mcgregorian1 , why is dAIC the same for DBH and H? Is this correct?
I can confirm that the dAIC for DBH and H is coming directly from the code, and after testing for dAIC all years individually (running each line of code), I can also confirm that the results are like what we're seeing. My only guess is that because DBH and height are linked intrinsically, we're getting the same result? But I agree it's odd we're seeing the exact same numbers for everything, including likelihood and the other stats that AIC yields.
To test it (in case Valentine wants to take a look at it):
trees_all_sub <- read.csv("manuscript/tables_figures/trees_all_sub.csv", stringsAsFactors = FALSE)
#one line is height, the other is DBH
models <- c("resist.value ~ year+(1|sp/tree)", "resist.value ~ year+(1|sp/tree)+height.ln.m")
# models <- c("resist.value ~ year+(1|sp/tree)", "resist.value ~ year+(1|sp/tree)+dbh.ln.cm")
lmm_all <- lapply(models, function(x){
fit1 <- lmer(x, data = model_df[[j]], REML=FALSE,
control = lmerControl(optimizer ="Nelder_Mead"))
return(fit1)
})
names(lmm_all) <- models
var_aic <- aictab(lmm_all, second.ord=TRUE, sort=FALSE) #rank based on AICc
#the individual year models are all subsets of the full, so it would make sense that if we're seeing the identical results for the full, we'd see it for the individual
- [x] @mcgregorian1 , did we use Y in the null models after it came out non-significant? (I think either way is justifiable, but make sure table is correct)
I'm not sure what Y is referring to here?
teixeirak
@mcgregorian1, our checklist in issue #48 was getting intractable/ out of date. Here's a new list:
Throughout
Figures & Tables
General:
FIg. 1-
Fig. height-
Table 1-
Table 2-
Table 3-
Table 4- individual predictor tests
Table 5- best full models
manuscript
General-
Abstract-
[x] work on abstract (mainly @teixeirak )
[ ] add supplementary info tables list
supplementary info
table S3-
table S4 -
table S5-
Figure S3-