Publications by Jonathan Spiess
Veg Results
Community Composition Broad FG Models Grass ## ## Model selection based on AICc: ## ## K AICc Delta_AICc AICcWt Cum.Wt LL ## GrassT 7 2284.82 0.00 0.70 0.70 -1135.21 ## GrassTG 8 2286.67 1.85 0.28 0.97 -1135.08 ## GrassInt 11 2291.24 6.41 0.03 1.00 -1134.14 ## GrassNull 4 2300...
827 sym R (75524 sym/136 pcs) 48 img
Forage Quality, Grazer Selection, and Livestock Performance
Weight Gains Questions/Hypothesis Are animals gaining weight each year? -I expect average daily gain to be positive for each livestock class each year Do weight gains differ between years for any livetock class? -I do not expect years to differ despite variable precipitation Results Weights for each year and livestock class are greater than zer...
7534 sym R (43709 sym/66 pcs) 14 img
HREC Veg Variance Partitioning
PBG Management and Patch Everything summarized to the transect instead of including transect I then summarized the sdcor values by Year, variable, and random effect grouping for graphing purposes. Setup VOR VP Calc knitr::kable(VORvar) Block Model Variable Year grp var1 var2 vcov sdcor C VOR20C VOR 2020 Management:Patch (Intercept) NA 0.14816...
911 sym R (14245 sym/56 pcs) 11 img 10 tbl
Soils July Update
Nutrients Monthly Ammonium TSF best model. ESD and Grazer only models are actually less explanatory than TSF only. ## ## Model selection based on AICc: ## ## K AICc Delta_AICc AICcWt Cum.Wt LL ## NHT 8 1681.20 0.00 0.62 0.62 -832.54 ## NHTE 11 1682.92 1.72 0.26 0.88 -830.34 ## NHNull 5 1685.60...
471 sym R (58330 sym/102 pcs) 50 img
Forage Chapter EmMeans
Nutritive Values Biomass TSF and interaction significant Overall TSF: RB < others, 3yr > intermediate and NYB Interaction: Cattle: RB < others; Sheep: RB < others, Intermediate & 3yr > NYB ## Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II Wald chisquare tests) ## ## Response: log(KgHa + 1) ## Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq) ## TSF 41...
1002 sym R (47135 sym/80 pcs) 4 img
Veg EmMeans
#Broad FG models ##Grass TSF only: RB < NYB and 3yr ## Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II Wald chisquare tests) ## ## Response: Grass ## Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq) ## TSF 23.4592 3 3.239e-05 *** ## Management 0.2547 1 0.6138 ## TSF:Management 1.9236 3 0.5884 ## --- ## Signif. codes: 0 ...
1725 sym R (83650 sym/185 pcs) 47 img
Soil EmMeans Package
Nutrients Monthly Ammonium What do we do with no significant fixed effects? Just say there were no differences and move on? The full additive plus interaction model says no significant fixed effects, and there are no TSF differences when following that with a tukey on TSF. ## Type III Analysis of Variance Table with Satterthwaite's method ## ...
2476 sym R (121009 sym/233 pcs) 32 img
September Soils HREC Update
Nutrients Monthly Ammonium TSF best model. ESD and Grazer only models are actually less explanatory than TSF only. ## ## Model selection based on AICc: ## ## K AICc Delta_AICc AICcWt Cum.Wt LL ## NHT 8 1681.20 0.00 0.62 0.62 -832.54 ## NHTE 11 1682.92 1.72 0.26 0.88 -830.34 ## NHNull 5 1685.60...
492 sym R (59057 sym/106 pcs) 51 img