Looking for the lost independence: Using Mixed Generalized Linear Models in choice tests;En busca de la independencia perdida: La utilización de Modelos Lineales Generalizados Mixtos en pruebas de preferencia

Ecologia Austral

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 199-206

  Mangeaud, Arnaldo ^a   Videla, Martín ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CÓRDOBA   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Deviance; Feeding preference; Multiple choice test; Statistical models

Indexed keywords

FEEDING ECOLOGY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 33144466108     PISSN: 03275477     EISSN: 1667782X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A New look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Atomat. contr. 19(6):716-723.
2. Graybill, F. 1976. Theory and application of the linear models. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole. Pacific Grove. EEUU. 705 pp.
3. Karban, R & G English-Loeb. 1997. Tachinid parasitoids affect host plant choice by caterpillars to increase caterpillar survival. Ecology 78(2):603-611.
4. Kuehl, R. 2001. Diseño de Experimentos. Principios estadísticos para el diseño y análisis de investigaciones. Thomson Learning. México DF. 666 pp.
5. Littel, RC; GA Milliken; WW Stroup & RD Wolfinger. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute. Cary, EEUU. 779 pp.
6. Manly, BFJ. 1993. Comments on design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding-preference experiments. Oecologia 93(1):149-152.
7. Mayhew, PJ. 1998. Testing the preference-performance hypothesis in phytophagous insects: lessons from Chrysanthemum leafminer (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Env. Entomol. 27(1):45-52.
8. McCullagh, P & J Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall. Londres. 511 pp.
9. Mc Millin, JD & MR Wagner. 1998. Influence of host plant vs. natural enemies on the spatial distribution of a pine sawfly. Neodiprion autumnalis. Ecol. Entomol. 23:397-408.
10. Mood, A & F Graybill. 1978. Introducción a la teoría de la estadística. Aguilar. Madrid, España. 536 pp.
11. Peterson, CH & PE Renaud. 1989. Analysis of feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 80(1):82-86.
12. Piepho, HP & J Ogutu. 2002. A simple mixed model for trend analysis ind wildlife populations. J. agric. biol. environ. stat. 7(3):350-360.
13. Poore, AGB & PD Steinberg. 1999. Preference-performance relationships and effects of host plant choice in an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecol. Monogr. 69(4):443-464.
14. Roa, R. 1992. Design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding-preference experiments. Oecologia 89(4):509-515.
15. SAS Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT user's guide, released 8.01 edition. SAS Intitute Inc. Cary.
16. Schwartz, G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Statistic. 6(2):461-464.
17. Spencer, KA. 1973. Agromyzidae (Diptera) of economic importance. Ser. Entomol 9:1-418.
18. Steinbauer, MJ; AR Clarke & JL Madden. 1998. Oviposition preference of a Eucalyptus herbivore and the importance of leaf age on intraspecific hos choice. Ecol. Entomol. 23:201-206.
19. Stuart, RJ & S Polavarapu. 1998. Oviposition preferences of the polyphagous moth Choristoneura parallela (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Effects of plant species, leaf size, and experimental design. Environ. Entomol. 27(1):102-109.
20. Weintraub, PG & AR Horowitz. 1995. The newest leafminer pest in Israel, Liriomyza huidobrensis. Phytoparasitica 23(2):177-184.
21. ZAR, J. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey, EEUU. 662 pp.