/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Q22E The following data refers to yie... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

The following data refers to yield of tomatoes (kg/plot) for four different levels of salinity. Salinity level here refers to electrical conductivity (EC), where the chosen levels were EC = 1.6, 3.8, 6.0, and 10.2 nmhos/cm.

Use the F test at level\(\alpha \)=.05 to test for any differences in true average yield due to the different salinity levels.

Short Answer

Expert verified

The different salinity levels is Reject null hypothesis.

Step by step solution

01

Step 1: Test the null hypothesis

The hypotheses of interest are

\({H_0}:\,\,\,{\mu _1} = {\mu _j},\,i \ne j\,\)

Versus alternative hypothesis

\({H_a}:\)At least two of the \({\mu _i}\)鈥榮 is different,

Where \({\mu _i}\)are the true averages yield due to different salinity levels.

The sample sizes of a treatments are unequal; thus, the ANOVA for unequal sample sizes should be used. The following table summarizes quantities

The following is required to understand how to compute mentioned and required quantities. Unequal Sample Sizes

Let \({J_{i,\,\,}}i = 1,2, \ldots ,l\,\,\,\,\,\,\,I\,\,\)be the sample sizes of treatments, and let \(n = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^l {\,\,{J_i}} \) be the total number of observations.

Denote with

\(\begin{aligned}{l}{x_i} = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} {{x_{i\,j}}} \,;\\{x_{ \cdot \cdot }} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} {\,{x_{i\,j}}} \,;\,} \end{aligned}\)

The

total sum of squares

(SST),

treatment sum of squares

(SSTr), and

error sum of squares

(SSE) are given by

\(\begin{aligned}{l}\,\,\,\,\,SST = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, \left( {\,{x_{i\,j}} - \mathop x\limits^\_ ..} \right)} ^2} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I \, \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, x_{_{i\,j}}^2 - \frac{1}{n}x_{ \cdot \cdot }^2\,;\\SSTr = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, \left( {\,{{\mathop x\limits^\_ }_{i\,.}} - \mathop x\limits^\_ ..} \right)} ^2} = \frac{1}{J} \cdot \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\frac{1}{{{J_i}}}\,} x_{_{i\,.}}^2 - \frac{1}{n}x_{ \cdot \cdot }^2\,;\\\,\,\,\,\,SST = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, \left( {\,{x_{i\,j}} - {{\mathop x\limits^\_ }_{i.}}} \right)} ^2} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\left( {{J_i} - 1} \right)\,} s_i^2,\end{aligned}\)

with degrees of freedom, respectively

\(\begin{aligned}{l}df = n - 1;\\df = I - 1;\\df = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I \, \left( {{J_i} - 1} \right) = n - I;\end{aligned}\)

02

Fundamental Identity

\(SST = SSTr + SSE\).

The mean squares are

\(\begin{aligned}{l}MSTr = \frac{1}{{I - 1}}.\,SSTr;\\\,\,\,\,\,MSE = \frac{1}{{n - I\,}}.\,SSE\,.\end{aligned}\)

F is ratio of the two mean squares

\(F = \frac{{MSTr}}{{MSE}}\)

The P-value is the area under the \({F_{I - 1,\,n - I}}\)curve to the right of f.

Compute everything one by one. Starting with the sum of observations in the \({i^{th}}\)treatment

\(\begin{aligned}{l}{x_1} = 59.5 + 53.3 + \ldots + 58.7 = 291.4;\\{x_2} = 55.2 + 59.1 + 52.8 + 54.5 = 221.6;\\{x_3} = 51.7 + 48.8 + \ldots + 46.1 = 203.4;\\{x_4} = 44.6 + 48.5 + 41 + 47.3 = 227.5;\end{aligned}\)

And the averages of the \({i^{th}}\) treatment are

\(\begin{aligned}{l}{\mathop x\limits^\_ _{1.}} = \frac{1}{{{J_1}}}.{x_{1.}} = \frac{1}{5}.291.4 = 58.28;\\{\mathop x\limits^\_ _{2.}} = \frac{1}{{{J_2}}}.{x_{2.}} = \frac{1}{4}.221.6 = 55.4;\\{\mathop x\limits^\_ _{3.}} = \frac{1}{{{J_3}}}.{x_{3.}} = \frac{1}{4}.203.4 = 50.85;\\{\mathop x\limits^\_ _{4.}} = \frac{1}{{{J_4}}}.{x_{4.}} = \frac{1}{5}.225.4 = 45.5;\end{aligned}\)

The grand sum is

\({x_{ \cdot \cdot }} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} {\,{x_{i\,j}}} \, = 59.5 + 55.2 + \ldots + 58.7 + 46.1 = 943.9,} \)

And the grand mean is

\(\mathop x\limits^\_ ..\frac{1}{n}.\,{x_{ \cdot \cdot }} = \frac{1}{{18}}.943.9 = 52.44\)

Degrees of freedom are, for \(n = 5 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 19\)

\(\begin{aligned}{l}df = n - 1 = 19 - 1 = 18;\\df = I - 1 = 4 - 1 = 3;\\df = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I \, \left( {{J_i} - 1} \right) = n - I = 19 - 4 = 15;\end{aligned}\)

The total sum of squares is

\(\begin{aligned}{l}SST = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, \left( {\,{x_{i\,j}} - \mathop x\limits^\_ ..} \right)} ^2} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I \, \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, x_{_{i\,j}}^2 - \frac{1}{n}x_{ \cdot \cdot }^2\,\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = \left( {{{59.5}^2} + {{55.2}^2} + \ldots + {{58.7}^2} + {{46.1}^2}} \right) - \frac{1}{{18}}{.52.44^2}\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = 50,078.07 - 49,497.06722\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = 581.0028\end{aligned}\)

The treatment sum of squares is

\(\begin{aligned}{l}SSTr = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{{J_i}} \, \left( {\,{{\mathop x\limits^\_ }_{i\,.}} - \mathop x\limits^\_ ..} \right)} ^2} = \frac{1}{J} \cdot \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\frac{1}{{{J_i}}}\,} x_{_{i\,.}}^2 - \frac{1}{n}x_{ \cdot \cdot }^2\,\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = \frac{1}{5}{.291.4^2} + \frac{1}{4}{.221.6^2} + \frac{1}{4}{.203.4^2} + \frac{1}{5}{.225.4^2} - \frac{1}{{18}}{.52.44^2}\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = 49,953.572 - 49,497.07\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = 456.5048.\end{aligned}\)

From the fundamental Identity

\(SST = SSTr + SSE\)

The error sum of squares is

\(SSE = SST - SSTr = 581.0028 - 456.5048 = 124.498\)

The mean squares are

\(\begin{aligned}{l}MSTr = \frac{1}{{I - 1}}.\,SSTr = \frac{1}{3}.456.5048 = 152.1683;\\\,\,\,\,\,MSE = \frac{1}{{n - I}}.\,SSE\, = \frac{1}{{14}}.124.498 = 8.89\end{aligned}\)

F is ratio of the two mean squares

\(f = \frac{{MSTr}}{{MSE}} = \frac{{152.1683}}{{8.89}} = 17.12\)

The P-value is the area under the \({F_{3,14}}\)curve to the right of f

\(P\left( {F > f} \right) = P\left( {F > 17.12} \right) \approx 0\)

Which was computed using a software; you can estimate the value using the table in the appendix as

\({F_{0.05,3,14}} = 3.34\)

Where the area to the right of \({F_{0.05,3,14}} = 3.34\) under the \({F_{3,14}}\) curve is 0.05, and because

\(f = 17.12 > 3.34 = \,{F_{0.05,3,14}}\)

reject null hypothesis

At given significant level. Also, if you used the P value, because

\(P = 0 < 0.05 = \alpha \)

reject null hypothesis

At given significant level. The conclusion is that there is a significant difference in yield of tomatoes for the different salinity levels.

Here, the final result is Reject null hypothesis.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The critical flicker frequency \(\left( {cff} \right)\) is the highest frequency at which a person can detect the flicker in a flickering light source. At frequencies above the cff, the light source appear to be continuous even though it is actually flickering. An investigation carried out to see whether true average cff depends on iris color yielded the following data (based on the article 鈥淭he Effects of Iris Color on Critical Flicker Frequency鈥.

Iris color

1.Brown

2.Green

3.Blue

\({\bf{26}}.{\bf{8}}\)

\({\bf{26}}.{\bf{4}}\)

\({\bf{25}}.{\bf{7}}\)

\({\bf{27}}.{\bf{9}}\)

\({\bf{24}}.{\bf{2}}\)

\({\bf{27}}.{\bf{2}}\)

\({\bf{23}}.{\bf{7}}\)

\({\bf{28}}.{\bf{0}}\)

\({\bf{29}}.{\bf{9}}\)

\({\bf{25}}.{\bf{0}}\)

\({\bf{26}}.{\bf{9}}\)

\({\bf{28}}.{\bf{5}}\)

\({\bf{26}}.{\bf{3}}\)

\({\bf{29}}.{\bf{1}}\)

\({\bf{29}}.{\bf{4}}\)

\({\bf{24}}.{\bf{8}}\)

\({\bf{28}}.{\bf{3}}\)

\({\bf{25}}.{\bf{7}}\)

\({\bf{24}}.{\bf{5}}\)

\({J_i}\)

\({\bf{8}}\)

\({\bf{5}}\)

\({\bf{6}}\)

\({x_i}\)

\({\bf{204}}.{\bf{7}}\)

\({\bf{134}}.{\bf{6}}\)

\({\bf{169}}.{\bf{0}}\)

\({\overline x _i}\)

\({\bf{25}}.{\bf{59}}\)

\({\bf{26}}.{\bf{92}}\)

\({\bf{28}}.{\bf{17}}\)

\(n = 19,{x_{..}} = 508.3\)

  1. State and test the relevant hypotheses at significance level\(.05\)(Hint:\(\sum {\sum {{x_{ij}}^2} = 13659.67,CF = 13598.36} \))
  2. Investigate difference between iris colors with respect to mean cff.

Referring to Exercise 38, construct

\(\theta = {\mu _1} - ({\mu _2} + {\mu _3} + {\mu _4} + {\mu _5})/4\)

which measures the difference between the average DNA content for the starch diet and the combined average for the four other diets. Does the resulting interval include zero?

Numerous factors contribute to the smooth running of an electric motor (鈥淚ncreasing Market Share Through Improved Product and Process Design: An Experimental Approach,鈥 Quality Engineering, 1991: 361鈥369). In particular, it is desirable to keep motor noise and vibration to a minimum. To study the effect that the brand of bearing has on motor vibration, five different motor bearing brands were examined by installing each type of bearing on different random samples of six motors. The amount of motor vibration (measured in microns) was recorded when each of the 30 motors was running. The data for this study follows. State and test the relevant hypotheses at significance level .05, and then carry out a multiple comparisons analysis if appropriate.

An experiment was carried out to compare electrical resitivity for six different low-permeability concrete bridge deck mixtures. There were \(26\)measurements on concrete cylinders for each mixture; these were obtained days \(28\)after casting.The entries in the accompanying ANOVA table are based on information in the article 鈥淚n-place Resitivity of Bridge Deck Concrete Mixtures鈥(ACI Matrerials j.,2009: 114-122).Fill in the remaining entries and test appropriate hypothese.

An article in the British scientific journal Nature (鈥淪ucrose Induction of Hepatic Hyperplasia in the Rat,鈥 August 25, 1972: 461) reports on an experiment in which each of five groups consisting of six rats was put on a diet with a different carbohydrate. At the conclusion of the experiment, the DNA content of the liver of each rat was determined (mg/g liver), with the following results:

Carbohydrate

Starch

2.58

Sucrose

2.63

Fructose

2.13

Glucose

2.41

2.49

Assuming also that x does the data indicate that true average DNA content is affected by the type of carbohydrate in the diet? Construct an ANOVA table and use a .05 level of significance.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.