Dealing with correlation in designed field experiments: part II

Published at February 10, 2025 ·  11 min read

With field experiments, studying the correlation between the observed traits may not be an easy task. For example, we can consider a genotype experiment, laid out in randomised complete blocks, with 27 wheat genotypes and three replicates, where several traits were recorded, including yield (Yield) and weight of thousand kernels (TKW). We might be interested in studying the correlation between those two traits, but we would need to face two fundamental problems:

A trip from variance-covariance to correlation and back

Published at January 24, 2025 ·  6 min read

The variance-covariance and the correlation matrices are two entities that describe the association between the columns of a two-way data matrix. They are very much used, e.g., in agriculture, biology and ecology and they can be easily calculated with base R, as shown in the box below.

data(mtcars)
matr <- mtcars[,1:4]

# Covariances
Sigma <- cov(matr)

# Correlations
R <- cor(matr)

Sigma
##              mpg        cyl       disp        hp
## mpg    36.324103  -9.172379  -633.0972 -320.7321
## cyl    -9.172379   3.189516   199.6603  101.9315
## disp -633.097208 199.660282 15360.7998 6721.1587
## hp   -320.732056 101.931452  6721.1587 4700.8669
R
##             mpg        cyl       disp         hp
## mpg   1.0000000 -0.8521620 -0.8475514 -0.7761684
## cyl  -0.8521620  1.0000000  0.9020329  0.8324475
## disp -0.8475514  0.9020329  1.0000000  0.7909486
## hp   -0.7761684  0.8324475  0.7909486  1.0000000

It is useful to be able to go back and forth from variance-covariance to correlation, without going back to the original data matrix. Let’s consider that the variance-covariance of the two variables X and Y is:

How do we combine errors? The linear case

Published at November 22, 2024 ·  7 min read

In our research work, we usually fit models to experimental data. Our aim is to estimate some biologically relevant parameters, together with their standard errors. Very often, these parameters are interesting in themselves, as they represent means, differences, rates or other important descriptors. In other cases, we use those estimates to derive further indices, by way of some appropriate calculations. For example, think that we have two parameter estimates, say Q and W, with standard errors respectively equal to \(\sigma_Q\) and \(\sigma_W\): it might be relevant to calculate the amount:

How do we combine errors, in biology? The delta method

Published at November 22, 2024 ·  7 min read

In a recent post I have shown that we can build linear combinations of model parameters (see here ). For example, if we have two parameter estimates, say Q and W, with standard errors respectively equal to \(\sigma_Q\) and \(\sigma_W\), we can build a linear combination as follows:

\[ Z = aQ + bW + c\]

where \(a\), \(b\) and \(c\) are three coefficients. The standard error for this combination can be obtained as:

Plotting weather data with ggplot()

Published at June 6, 2024 ·  7 min read

Very often, we agronomists have to deal with weather data, e.g., to evaluate and explain the behaviour of genotypes in different environments. We are very much used to representing temperature and rainfall data in one single graph with two y-axis, which gives a good immediate insight on the weather pattern at a certain location. Unfortunately, I had to discover that doing such graphs with ggplot() is not a straightforward task.

Here is why I don't care about the Levene's test

Published at March 15, 2024 ·  5 min read

During my stat courses, I never give my students any information about the Levene’s test (Levene and Howard, 1960), or other similar tests for homoscedasticity, unless I am specifically prompted to do so. It is not that I intend to underrate the tremendous importance of checking for the basic assumptions of linear model! On the contrary, I always show my students several methods for the graphical inspection of model residuals, but I do not share the same aching desire for a P-value, that most of my colleagues seem to possess.

Pairwise comparisons in nonlinear regression

Published at February 23, 2024 ·  8 min read

Pairwise comparisons are one of the most debated topic in agricultural research: they are very often used and, sometimes, abused, in literature. I have nothing against the appropriate use of this very useful technique and, for those who are interested, some colleagues and I have given a bunch of (hopefully) useful suggestions in a paper, a few years ago (follow this link here).

According to the emails I often receive, there might be some interest in making pairwise comparisons in linear/nonlinear regression models. In particular, whenever we have grouped data and we have fitted the same model to each group, we might like to compare the groups, to state whether the regression lines/curves are significantly different from each other. To this aim, we could consider two approaches:

Regression analyses with common checks in pesticide research

Published at December 15, 2023 ·  4 min read

In pesticide research or, in general, agriculture research, we very commonly encounter experiments with, e.g., several herbicides tested at different doses and in different conditions. For these experiments, the untreated control is always added and, of course, such control is common to all herbicides.

For example, in another post (see here) we have considered an experiment with two herbicides (rimsulfuron and dicamba) at two rates (40 and 60 g/ha for rimsulfuron and 0.6 and 1 kg/ha for dicamba) and with four adjuvant treatments (surfactant, frigate, mineral oil and no adjuvant). The dataset is loaded in the box below: there are three predictors (Herbicide, Adjuvant and Dose) and two quantitative response variables (WeedCoverage and Yield).

Factorial designs with check in pesticide research

Published at December 15, 2023 ·  6 min read

In pesticide research or, in general, agriculture research, we very commonly encouter experiments with two/three crossed factors and some other treatment that is not included in the factorial structure. For example, let’s consider an experiment with two herbicides (rimsulfuron and dicamba) at two rates (40 and 60 g/ha for rimsulfuron and 0.6 and 1 kg/ha for dicamba) and with four adjuvant treatments (surfactant, frigate, mineral oil and no adjuvant). Apart from this fully crossed structure, we need to introduce, at least, an untreated control and a hand-weeded control. The design for such an experiment has been termed ‘augmented factorial’, because we are, indeed, including some extra treatment levels beyond the crossed factorial structure.

Repeated measures and subsampling with perennial crops

Published at December 4, 2023 ·  5 min read

In a recent post, I have talked about repeated measures, for a case where measurements were taken repeatedly in the same plots across years see here. Previously, in another post, I had talked about subsampling, for a case where several random samples were taken from the same plot see here.

Repeated measures and subsampling are vastly different: in the first case I am specifically interested in the ‘evolution’ of the response over time (or space, sometimes). In the second case (subsampling), I only want to improve the precision/accuracy of my measurements, by taking multiple random samples in each plot.