7 1992 back system analyses

7.1 Leaf area

This analysis uses all systems that have a non-NA value for total leaf area of the front and back in 1991 and in 1992, excluding those systems for which 1990 leaf area was NA.

7.1.1 Data & visualization

Read in data

Select the total leaf area in front in 1992 variable, and the independent variables. Also filtering out rows that don’t have a leaf area record in 1990. We need to do this in order to be able to compare models from model set A (which don’t include leaf area, and so wouldn’t naturally be affected by the missing data) with models from model set B (which do include leaf area and would be affected by the missing data). In other words, removing these rows means that model set A and model set B will run using the exact same dataset, which is necessary in order for us to compare the models.

7.1.6 Conclusion

The best model has main effects of LfBtot_91 and Sever.

7.1.7 Estimated marginal means

the main effect of sever

## $emmeans
##  Sever emmean    SE    df lower.CL upper.CL
##  C       74.4  9.24  91.9     56.1     92.8
##  S1     118.1 11.22 136.5     95.9    140.3
##  S2     124.3 10.21 120.4    104.1    144.5
##  S4      88.9  9.28  94.7     70.5    107.3
## 
## Degrees-of-freedom method: satterthwaite 
## Confidence level used: 0.95 
## 
## $contrasts
##  contrast estimate   SE  df t.ratio p.value
##  C - S1     -43.66 14.8 222 -2.957  0.0180 
##  C - S2     -49.87 13.5 218 -3.689  0.0016 
##  C - S4     -14.48 11.7 216 -1.243  0.6004 
##  S1 - S2     -6.21 13.6 222 -0.455  0.9685 
##  S1 - S4     29.17 14.6 223  2.005  0.1892 
##  S2 - S4     35.39 13.4 217  2.642  0.0435 
## 
## Degrees-of-freedom method: satterthwaite 
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 4 estimates

S2 systems have the most leaf area in back in 1992, significantly more than control and S4 systems. S1 systems have marginally more leaf area than control systems.

the main effect of back leaf area in 1991

Across all of the severing treatments, there are strong positive relationships with leaf area in 1991.

7.2 Conditional leaf area

This analysis uses all systems that have a non-NA value for total leaf area of the front and back in 1991 and in 1992, excluding those systems for which 1990 leaf area was NA. Furthermore, this analysis excludes any systems with a zero leaf area in 1992.

7.2.1 Data & visualization

Read in data

Select the total leaf area in front in 1992 variable, and the independent variables. Also filtering out rows that don’t have a leaf area record in 1990. We need to do this in order to be able to compare models from model set A (which don’t include leaf area, and so wouldn’t naturally be affected by the missing data) with models from model set B (which do include leaf area and would be affected by the missing data). In other words, removing these rows means that model set A and model set B will run using the exact same dataset, which is necessary in order for us to compare the models.

7.2.3 Conclusion

the main effect of sever

## $emmeans
##  Sever emmean   SE   df lower.CL upper.CL
##  S1       298 20.2 43.8      258      339
##  S2       270 17.4 33.0      234      305
##  S4       169 24.2 56.6      121      218
## 
## Degrees-of-freedom method: satterthwaite 
## Confidence level used: 0.95 
## 
## $contrasts
##  contrast estimate   SE   df t.ratio p.value
##  S1 - S2      28.4 22.5 82.8 1.260   0.4218 
##  S1 - S4     128.9 31.0 84.2 4.162   0.0002 
##  S2 - S4     100.5 26.1 84.5 3.853   0.0007 
## 
## Degrees-of-freedom method: satterthwaite 
## P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates

S2 systems have the most leaf area in back in 1992, significantly more than control and S4 systems. S1 systems have marginally more leaf area than control systems.

the main effect of back leaf area in 1990

the main effect of back leaf area in 1991