Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(s): David B. South; Curtis L. VanderSchaaf
    Date: 2018
    Source: In: Kirschman, Julia E., comp. 2018. Proceedings of the 19th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. e-General Technical Report SRS- 234. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
    Publication Series: Proceedings - Paper (PR-P)
    Station: Southern Research Station
    PDF: Download Publication  (455.0 KB)

    Description

    When it comes to testing for differences in seedling survival, researchers sometimes make Type II statistical errors due to the inherent variability associated with survival in tree planting studies. For example, in one trial (with five replications) first-year survival of seedlings planted in October (42 percent) was not significantly different (alpha=0.05) from those planted in December (69 percent). Did planting in a dry October truly have no effect on survival? Authors who make a Type II error might not be aware that as seedling survival decreases (up to an overall average of 50 percent survival), statistical power declines. As a result, the ability to declare an 8 percentage point difference as “significant” is very difficult when survival averages 90 percent or less. We estimate that about half of regeneration trials (average survival of pines <90 percent) cannot declare a 12 percent difference as statistically significant (alpha= 0.05). When researchers realize their tree planting trials have low statistical power, they should consider using more replications. Other ways to increase power include: (1) use a 0.1 alpha value which increases the Type I error (2) use a potentially more powerful contrast test (instead of an overall treatment F-test) and (3) conduct survival trials under a roof. Alternative methods include modeling survival data (instead of applying statistics to separate mean values) and simply estimating the treatment effect size with confidence intervals.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to pubrequest@fs.fed.us to request a hard copy of this publication.
    • (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.

    Citation

    South, David B.; VanderSchaaf, Curtis L. 2018. If survival matters, should regeneration studies have more replications? . In: Kirschman, Julia E., comp. 2018. Proceedings of the 19th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. e-General Technical Report SRS- 234. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 444 p. (pages 64-70).

    Related Search


    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/57280