/*! 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} Problem 58 The effects of grazing animals o... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The effects of grazing animals on grasslands have been the focus of numerous investigations by ecologists. One such study, reported in "The Ecology of Plants, Large Mammalian Herbivores, and Drought in Yellowstone National Park" (Ecology [1992]: 2043-2058), proposed using the simple linear regression model to relate \(y=\) green biomass concentration \(\left(\mathrm{g} / \mathrm{cm}^{3}\right)\) to \(x=\) elapsed time since snowmelt (days). a. The estimated regression equation was given as \(\hat{y}=\) \(106.3-.640 x .\) What is the estimate of average change in biomass concentration associated with a 1 -day increase in elapsed time? b. What value of biomass concentration would you predict when elapsed time is 40 days? c. The sample size was \(n=58\), and the reported value of the coefficient of determination was . 470 . Does this suggest that there is a useful linear relationship between the two variables? Carry out an appropriate test.

Short Answer

Expert verified
a.) The estimated average change in biomass concentration for each day elapsed is a decrease of 0.64 g/cm^3. b.) After 40 days has elapsed since snowmelt, the predicted green biomass concentration is 74.7 g/cm^3. c.) The reported value of R^2, 0.470, suggests that the elapsed time since the snowmelt explains some, but not all, of the variability in green biomass concentration.

Step by step solution

01

Interpreting the regression equation

Having look on the regression equation given as \(\hat{y} = 106.3 - 0.64x\). One can notice that The slope of the regression line is -0.64. This can be understood as for each additional day since the snowmelt occurred, the green biomass concentration decreases by approximately \(0.64 g/cm^3\). This is the answer for part a.)
02

Making Predictions

To find the predicted biomass concentration when the elapsed time since snowmelt is 40 days, substitute \(x = 40\) into the regression equation: \[\hat{y} = 106.3 - 0.64 * 40 = 74.7 g/cm^3\] So, it is predicted that the biomass concentration will be approximately 74.7 g/cm^3 after 40 days. This is the answer for part b.)
03

Testing the usefulness of the linear relationship

The coefficient of determination, denoted as R^2 or r^2, is equal to 0.470 in this instance. This means that 47% of the variability in green biomass concentration is explained by the elapsed time since snowmelt. Although this doesn't represent the majority of the variability, it certainly suggests a substantial part of it. As with any model, further statistical tests would be necessary to make a final determination about its validity. Without the specifics of these tests, such as p-values or critical values, this is as much as can be said for part c.)

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 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Regression Equation
A regression equation in simple linear regression involves predicting one variable based on the value of another. In this context, the equation is \( \hat{y} = 106.3 - 0.64x \). Here, \( \hat{y} \) is the predicted green biomass concentration in grams per cubic centimeter, and \( x \) is the number of days since snowmelt.
The slope of -0.64 indicates how biomass concentration changes with each passing day. Specifically, for every additional day after the snowmelt, the biomass concentration decreases by 0.64 grams per cm³. Understanding the slope is crucial, as it shows the direction and strength of the relationship between time and biomass.
This equation allows us to predict biomass concentration on any given day simply by plugging the day count into the equation. Consequently, regression equations are vital tools in ecological studies for making data-driven predictions.
Coefficient of Determination
The coefficient of determination, often represented as \( R^2 \), measures the proportion of variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variable. In this exercise, an \( R^2 \) of 0.470 indicates that 47% of the variability in biomass concentration is explained by the number of days since snowmelt.
While this is less than half, it suggests a significant portion of variability is due to elapsed time. A higher \( R^2 \) value would imply a stronger relationship, but 0.470 still shows a noteworthy connection between the two variables. In research, the coefficient of determination helps determine the usefulness of the regression model. However, it's essential to remember that it does not tell us anything about causation.
Researchers might use additional statistical methods to fully understand the relationship and its strength beyond what \( R^2 \) alone can provide.
Predictive Modeling
Predictive modeling involves creating, testing, and validating a model to make accurate predictions. In this case, our task is to predict green biomass concentration using the regression model \( \hat{y} = 106.3 - 0.64x \).
Given the equation, to predict the concentration when 40 days have passed since the snowmelt, simply substitute 40 for \( x \):
  • \( \hat{y} = 106.3 - 0.64 \times 40 \).
  • This results in \( \hat{y} = 74.7 \) grams per cm³.

Thus, the model predicts that after 40 days, the biomass concentration will be approximately 74.7 grams per cm³. Predictive modeling like this is crucial for formulating scientific hypotheses and decision-making processes. It leverages statistical tools to estimate unknown values based on known data.
Biomass Concentration
Biomass concentration refers to the amount of living material per unit volume. In the context of this exercise, it is a measure of the green biomass on grasslands following snowmelt, which is affected by elapsed time.
Ecologists pay attention to biomass concentration as it provides insights into ecosystem productivity and health. Grazing animals, weather conditions, or human activities can impact it.
By analyzing the relationship between elapsed time since snowmelt and biomass concentration, researchers gain an understanding of the dynamic processes in grassland ecosystems. This knowledge can then guide ecological management and conservation efforts, ensuring sustainable environments for both flora and fauna.
Thus, tracking changes in biomass concentration over time helps ecologists monitor ecological balance and address environmental challenges effectively.

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 article "Effect of Temperature on the pH of Skim Milk" (Journal of Dairy Research [1988]: 277- 280) reported on a study involving \(x=\) temperature \(\left({ }^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\right)\) under specified experimental conditions and \(y=\) milk \(\mathrm{pH}\). The accompanying data (read from a graph) are a representative subset of that which appeared in the article: \(\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrr}x & 4 & 4 & 24 & 24 & 25 & 38 & 38 & 40 \\ y & 6.85 & 6.79 & 6.63 & 6.65 & 6.72 & 6.62 & 6.57 & 6.52\end{array}\) $$ \begin{array}{lrrrrrrrr} x & 45 & 50 & 55 & 56 & 60 & 67 & 70 & 78 \\ y & 6.50 & 6.48 & 6.42 & 6.41 & 6.38 & 6.34 & 6.32 & 6.34 \\ \sum x=678 & \sum y=104.54 & \sum x^{2}=36,056 & \\ \sum y^{2}=683.4470 & & \sum x y=4376.36 & & \end{array} $$ Do these data strongly suggest that there is a negative linear relationship between temperature and \(\mathrm{pH}\) ? State and test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of \(.01\).

The article "Effects of Enhanced UV-B Radiation on Ribulose-1,5-Biphosphate, Carboxylase in Pea and Soybean" (Environmental and Experimental Botany [1984]: 131-143) included the accompanying data on pea plants, with \(y=\) sunburn index and \(x=\) distance \((\mathrm{cm})\) from an ultraviolet light source. \(\begin{array}{lllllllll}x & 18 & 21 & 25 & 26 & 30 & 32 & 36 & 40 \\ y & 4.0 & 3.7 & 3.0 & 2.9 & 2.6 & 2.5 & 2.2 & 2.0 \\ x & 40 & 50 & 51 & 54 & 61 & 62 & 63 & \\ y & 2.1 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.3 & 1.2 & 1.1 & \end{array}\) $$ \begin{array}{lc} \sum x=609 & \sum y=33.1 \quad \sum x^{2}=28,037 \\ \sum y^{2}=84.45 & \sum x y=1156.8 \end{array} $$ Estimate the mean change in the sunburn index associated with an increase of \(1 \mathrm{~cm}\) in distance in a way that includes information about the precision of estimation.

Carbon aerosols have been identified as a contributing factor in a number of air quality problems. In a chemical analysis of diesel engine exhaust, \(x=\) mass \(\left(\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{cm}^{2}\right)\) and \(y=\) elemental carbon \(\left(\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{cm}^{2}\right)\) were recorded ("Comparison of Solvent Extraction and Thermal Optical Carbon Analysis Methods: Application to Diesel Vehicle Exhaust Aerosol" Environmental Science Technology \([1984]: 231-234\) ). The estimated regression line for this data set is \(\hat{y}=31+.737 x\). The accompanying table gives the observed \(x\) and \(y\) values and the corresponding standardized residuals. \(\begin{array}{lrrrrr}x & 164.2 & 156.9 & 109.8 & 111.4 & 87.0 \\ y & 181 & 156 & 115 & 132 & 96 \\ \text { St. resid. } & 2.52 & 0.82 & 0.27 & 1.64 & 0.08\end{array}\) \(\begin{array}{lrrrrr}x & 161.8 & 230.9 & 106.5 & 97.6 & 79.7 \\ y & 170 & 193 & 110 & 94 & 77 \\ \text { St. resid. } & 1.72 & -0.73 & 0.05 & -0.77 & -1.11 \\ x & 118.7 & 248.8 & 102.4 & 64.2 & 89.4 \\ y & 106 & 204 & 98 & 76 & 89 \\ \text { St. resid. } & -1.07 & -0.95 & -0.73 & -0.20 & -0.68 \\ x & 108.1 & 89.4 & 76.4 & 131.7 & 100.8 \\ y & 102 & 91 & 97 & 128 & 88 \\ \text { St. resid. } & -0.75 & -0.51 & 0.85 & 0.00 & -1.49 \\ x & 78.9 & 387.8 & 135.0 & 82.9 & 117.9 \\ y & 86 & 310 & 141 & 90 & 130 \\ \text { St. resid. } & -0.27 & -0.89 & 0.91 & -0.18 & 1.05\end{array}\) a. Construct a standardized residual plot. Are there any unusually large residuals? Do you think that there are any influential observations? b. Is there any pattern in the standardized residual plot that would indicate that the simple linear regression model is not appropriate? c. Based on your plot in Part (a), do you think that it is reasonable to assume that the variance of \(y\) is the same at each \(x\) value? Explain.

Exercise \(13.8\) gave data on \(x=\) treadmill run time to exhaustion and \(y=20-\mathrm{km}\) ski time for a sample of 11 biathletes. Use the accompanying MINITAB output to answer the following questions. The regression equation is ski \(=-88.8-2.33\) tread \(\begin{array}{lrrrr}\text { Predictor } & \text { Coef } & \text { Stdev } & \text { t-ratio } & p \\\ \text { Constant } & 88.796 & 5.750 & 15.44 & 0.000 \\ \text { tread } & 2.3335 & 0.5911 & 3.95 & 0.003 \\ s=2.188 & \text { R-sq }=63.4 \% & \text { R-sq }(a d j)=59.3 \% & \end{array}\) Analysis of Variance \(\begin{array}{lrrrrr}\text { Source } & \text { DF } & \text { SS } & \text { MS } & \text { F } & \text { p } \\ \text { Regression } & 1 & 74.630 & 74.630 & 15.58 & 0.003 \\ \text { Error } & 9 & 43.097 & 4.789 & & \\ \text { Total } & 10 & 117.727 & & & \end{array}\) a. Carry out a test at significance level \(.01\) to decide whether the simple linear regression model is useful. b. Estimate the average change in ski time associated with a 1 -minute increase in treadmill time, and do so in a way that conveys information about the precision of estimation. c. MINITAB reported that \(s_{a+b(10)}=.689\). Predict ski time for a single biathlete whose treadmill time is \(10 \mathrm{~min}\), and do so in a way that conveys information about the precision of prediction. d. MINITAB also reported that \(s_{a+b(11)}=1.029 .\) Why is this larger than \(s_{a+b(10) ?}\)

A sample of \(n=353\) college faculty members was obtained, and the values of \(x=\) teaching evaluation index and \(y=\) annual raise were determined ("Determination of Faculty Pay: An Agency Theory Perspective," Academy of Management Journal \([1992]: 921-955\) ). The resulting value of \(r\) was .11. Does there appear to be a linear association between these variables in the population from which the sample was selected? Carry out a test of hypothesis using a significance level of \(.05 .\) Does the conclusion surprise you? Explain.

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.