Mixed Models: ANOVA

Mixed Models

There are many examples in agronomy and weed science where mixed effects models are appropriate. In ANOVA, everything except the intentional (fixed) treatment(s), reflect random variation. This includes soil variability, experimental locations, benches in the greenhouse, weather patterns between years; many things can affect experimental results that simply cannot be controlled. In many cases, we can try to account for these sources of variation by blocking. We can consider the selection of the blocks to take place at random in the sense that we usually cannot tell in advance whether or not the next block will exhibit a low, high, or more moderate response level. In this context, we can describe random effects as effects that cannot be controlled and therefore cannot be explained by the treatment structure of the experiment. In many designed experiments, we are not inherently interested in these random effects, but in an adequate analysis we need to acknowledge the variation that they contribute. We can do so using a mixed effects model that contains both fixed and random effects.

To illustrate mixed effects ANOVA, we will use the same dry bean herbicide data set that was used in the ANOVA section to allow for comparison; please read the ANOVA section for details on the study. We will need to load the lme4 and multcomp packages for this analysis.

flum.dat$yrblock  <- with(flum.dat, factor(year):factor(block))

First, we can look at group means (in plants per acre, and plants per hectare) using the dplyr package.

beansum <- flum.dat %.%
  group_by(year, treatment) %.%
  summarize( Pop.plantsA  = round(mean(population.4wk),-2),
             Pop.plantsHa = round(mean(population.4wk*2.47),-2))
## Source: local data frame [21 x 4]
## Groups: year
##    year                   treatment Pop.plantsA Pop.plantsHa
## 1  2009         EPTC + ethafluralin       48800       120500
## 2  2009  flumioxazin + ethafluralin       38300        94700
## 3  2009 flumioxazin + pendimethalin       19700        48800
## 4  2009   flumioxazin + trifluralin       24400        60300
## 5  2009                  Handweeded       34800        86100
## 6  2009         imazamox + bentazon       49900       123400
## 7  2009                  Nontreated       46500       114800
## 8  2010         EPTC + ethafluralin       56600       139900
## 9  2010  flumioxazin + ethafluralin       15700        38700
## 10 2010 flumioxazin + pendimethalin       20000        49500
## 11 2010   flumioxazin + trifluralin       20900        51600
## 12 2010                  Handweeded       50500       124800
## 13 2010         imazamox + bentazon       57500       142000
## 14 2010                  Nontreated       50500       124800
## 15 2011         EPTC + ethafluralin       38100        94100
## 16 2011  flumioxazin + ethafluralin       14400        35500
## 17 2011 flumioxazin + pendimethalin       19800        49000
## 18 2011   flumioxazin + trifluralin       23100        57000
## 19 2011                  Handweeded       42300       104400
## 20 2011         imazamox + bentazon       38800        95800
## 21 2011                  Nontreated       39400        97400

Mixed Effects Model using the lme4 Package

In the ANOVA section, we considered year, block, and treatment all as fixed effects. However, because the number of replicates was different by year, analyzing the combined data from all three years is problematic. The effect of year is unbalanced; we have more observations for 2010 and 2011 than for 2009. We can deal with the unbalanced nature of the data by using a mixed effects model. There are other good reasons for analyzing the data as a mixed effect model. The hope is that the results of this experiment can be generalized beyond the three years the study was conducted. The three years in which we conducted the experiment represent 3 possible years out of many when the experiment could have been done, and therefore, we can assume the impact of year to be a random variable. Same goes for the blocking criteria within a year. However, the treatments were selected specifically to determine their impact on the dry bean crop. Therefore, we will consider the treatments as fixed effects, but the year and blocking criteria within a year random effects.

# Mixed Effects ANOVA
lmer(population.4wk ~ treatment+(1|year/block), data=flum.dat, REML=F)->flum.lmer
## Analysis of Variance Table
##           Df  Sum Sq Mean Sq F value
## treatment  6 1.2e+10   2e+09    28.9

Model Comparison to Obtain P-values

One of the most frustrating things to many researchers analyzing mixed models in R is a lack of p-values provided by default. The calculation of P-values for complex models with random effects and multiple experimental unit sizes is not a trivial matter. Certain assumptions must be made, and it is difficult to generalize these assumptions from experiment to experiment. Therefore, the authors of the lme4 package have chosen not to print P-values by default. We can get a P-value for the fixed effect of treatment by comparing our model with a reduced model that does not contain the treatment effect. The P-value that results, then, is effectively the P-value for the treatment effect. When comparing lmer() models, it is important to specify the argument REML=F in both models so that the model is fit using full maximum likelihood (rather than the default restricted maximum likelihood).

lmer(population.4wk ~ (1|year/block), data=flum.dat, REML=F)->flum.null # reduced model
anova(flum.null, flum.lmer) # anova function to compare the full and reduced models
## Data: flum.dat
## Models:
## flum.null: population.4wk ~ (1 | year/block)
## flum.lmer: population.4wk ~ treatment + (1 | year/block)
##           Df  AIC  BIC logLik deviance Chisq Chi Df Pr(>Chisq)    
## flum.null  4 1710 1720   -851     1702                            
## flum.lmer 10 1633 1656   -807     1613  89.4      6     <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

There is a highly signifiant reduction in model fit when we remove treatment from the model, indicating there is a significant effect of treatment on dry bean emergence. Therefore, we will want to look at the treatment means to determine which treatments affected dry bean stand. First, though, it is often of interest to look at the random effects.

Random Effects

The summary() function can be used to print most of the relevant information from the mixed model fit summary(flum.lmer). We can selectively print only the certain parts of the model fit. Adding $varcor to the summary function of the fit will print out the variance components for the random terms as well as the residual variance.

##  Groups     Name        Std.Dev.
##  block:year (Intercept)    0    
##  year       (Intercept) 3146    
##  Residual               8312

The random 'year' effect appears to be contributing substantially to the model, but the blocking criteria within a year does not. When reporting results of a random effects model for publication, it is important that these results be included so that a full accounting of variability is provided. The ranef() function returns estimates for the random effects of year:

##      (Intercept)
## 2009        1364
## 2010        2518
## 2011       -3882

On average, bean populations were lowest in 2011, and highest in 2010. Using tapply() results in a similar conclusion, and helps put the random effects estimates into context.

tapply(flum.dat$population.4wk, flum.dat$year, mean) 
##  2009  2010  2011 
## 37503 38831 30835

Fixed Effects & Mean Separation

In most designed agricultural experiments, the fixed effects (and specifically differences between fixed effects treatments) are of most interest to the researcher. We can use the glht() function in the multcomp package to separate treatment means if we conclude there is a significant treatment effect. The p-values below are adjusted using Tukey's method.

summary(glht(flum.lmer, linfct=mcp(treatment="Tukey")))->flum.glht
flum.glht # print all pairwise comparisons

Printing all pairwise comparisons is valuable to get P-values, estimates of differences, etc. for reporting (not shown here due to space). But we can also plot the 95% confidence intervals to allow better visualization of differences. In the plot below, the comparison is listed on the left in the format (treatment1 - treatment2). If the confidence interval bars do not include zero (the vertical dotted line) then the comparison is significantly different according to the Tukey adjusted p-values (at hte 5% confidence level).

par(mar=c(5,22,3,1)) # set wide left margin 

plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-9

The glht() function will not allow for unadjusted comparisons, since multiple testing tends to inflate the likelihood of a Type I error. If for some reason unadjusted Fisher LSD p-values are required (similar to the default in SAS) the lsmeans() function in the lsmeans package can be used.

lsmeans(flum.lmer, pairwise ~ treatment, data=flum.dat, adjust="none")

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *