Dear R-help users,
I am trying to analyze some visual transect data of organisms to generate a
habitat distribution model. Once organisms are sighted, they are followed
as point data is collected at a given time interval. Because of the
autocorrelation among these "follows," I wish to utilize a GAM-GEE approach
similar to that of Pirotta et al. 2011, using packages 'yags' and 'splines'
(http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v436/p257-272/). Their R scripts
are shown here (
http://www.int-res.com/articles/suppl/m436p257_supp/m436p257_supp1-code.r).
I have used this code with limited success and multiple issues of models
failing to converge.
Below is the structure of my data:
> str(dat2)
'data.frame': 10792 obs. of 4 variables:
$ dist_slag : num 26475 26340 25886 25400 24934 ...
$ Depth : num -10.1 -10.5 -16.6 -22.2 -29.7 ...
$ dolphin_presence: int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
$ block : int 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
> head(dat2)
dist_slag Depth dolphin_presence block
1 26475.47 -10.0934 0 1
2 26340.47 -10.4870 0 1
3 25886.33 -16.5752 0 1
4 25399.88 -22.2474 0 1
5 24934.29 -29.6797 0 1
6 24519.90 -26.2370 0 1
Here is the summary of my block variable (indicating the number of
groups for which autocorrelation exists within each block
> summary(dat2$block)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1.00 39.00 76.00 73.52 111.00 148.00
However, I would like to use the package 'gamm4', as I am more familiar
with Professor Simon Wood's packages and functions, and it appears gamm4
might be the most appropriate. It is important to note that the models have
a binary response (organism presence of absence along a transect), and thus
why I think gamm4 is more appropriate than gamm. In the gamm help, it
provides the following example for autocorrelation within factors:
## more complicated autocorrelation example - AR errors
## only within groups defined by `fac'
e <- rnorm(n,0,sig)
for (i in 2:n) e[i] <- 0.6*e[i-1]*(fac[i-1]==fac[i]) + e[i]
y <- f + e
b <- gamm(y~s(x,k=20),correlation=corAR1(form=~1|fac))
Following this example, the following is the code I used for my dataset
b <- gamm4(dolphin_presence~s(dist_slag)+s(Depth),random=(form=~1|block),
family=binomial(),data=dat)
However, by examining the output (summary(b$gam)) and specifically
summary(b$mer)), I am either unsure of how to interpret the results,
or do not believe that the autocorrelation within the group is being
taken into consideration.
> summary(b$gam)
Family: binomial
Link function: logit
Formula:
dolphin_presence ~ s(dist_slag) + s(Depth)
Parametric coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) -13.968 5.145 -2.715 0.00663 **
---
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
Approximate significance of smooth terms:
edf Ref.df Chi.sq p-value
s(dist_slag) 4.943 4.943 70.67 6.85e-14 ***
s(Depth) 6.869 6.869 115.59 < 2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
R-sq.(adj) = 0.317glmer.ML score = 10504 Scale est. = 1 n = 10792
>
> summary(b$mer)
Generalized linear mixed model fit by the Laplace approximation
AIC BIC logLik deviance
10514 10551 -5252 10504
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
Xr s(dist_slag) 1611344 1269.39
Xr.0 s(Depth) 98622 314.04
Number of obs: 10792, groups: Xr, 8; Xr.0, 8
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
X(Intercept) -13.968 5.145 -2.715 0.00663 **
Xs(dist_slag)Fx1 -35.871 33.944 -1.057 0.29063
Xs(Depth)Fx1 3.971 3.740 1.062 0.28823
---
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
X(Int) X(_)F1
Xs(dst_s)F1 0.654
Xs(Dpth)Fx1 -0.030 0.000
>
How do I ensure that autocorrelation is indeed being accounted for
within each unique value of the "block" variable? What is the simplest
way to interpret the output for "summary(b$mer)"?
The results do differ from a normal gam (package mgcv) using the same
variables and parameters without the "correlation=..." term,
indicating that *something *different is occurring.
However, when I use a different variable for the correlation term
(season), I get the SAME output:
> dat2 <- data.frame(dist_slag = dat$dist_slag, Depth = dat$Depth,
> dolphin_presence = dat$dolphin_presence,
+ block = dat$block, season=dat$season)
> head(dat2)
dist_slag Depth dolphin_presence block season
1 26475.47 -10.0934 0 1 F
2 26340.47 -10.4870 0 1 F
3 25886.33 -16.5752 0 1 F
4 25399.88 -22.2474 0 1 F
5 24934.29 -29.6797 0 1 F
6 24519.90 -26.2370 0 1 F
> summary(dat2$season)
F S
3224 7568
> b <- gamm4(dolphin_presence~s(dist_slag)+s(Depth),correlation=corAR1(1,
> form=~1 | season), family=binomial(),data=dat2)
> summary(b$gam)
Family: binomial
Link function: logit
Formula:
dolphin_presence ~ s(dist_slag) + s(Depth)
Parametric coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) -13.968 5.145 -2.715 0.00663 **
---
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
Approximate significance of smooth terms:
edf Ref.df Chi.sq p-value
s(dist_slag) 4.943 4.943 70.67 6.85e-14 ***
s(Depth) 6.869 6.869 115.59 < 2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
R-sq.(adj) = 0.317glmer.ML score = 10504 Scale est. = 1 n = 10792
> summary(b$mer)
Generalized linear mixed model fit by the Laplace approximation
AIC BIC logLik deviance
10514 10551 -5252 10504
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
Xr s(dist_slag) 1611344 1269.39
Xr.0 s(Depth) 98622 314.04
Number of obs: 10792, groups: Xr, 8; Xr.0, 8
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
X(Intercept) -13.968 5.145 -2.715 0.00663 **
Xs(dist_slag)Fx1 -35.871 33.944 -1.057 0.29063
Xs(Depth)Fx1 3.971 3.740 1.062 0.28823
---
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
X(Int) X(_)F1
Xs(dst_s)F1 0.654
Xs(Dpth)Fx1 -0.030 0.000
>
I just want to make sure it is correctly allowing for correlation
within each value for the "block" variable. How do I formulate the
model to say that autocorrelation can exist within each single value
for block, but assume independence among blocks?
On another note, I am also receiving the following warning message
after model completion for larger models (with many more variables
than 2):
Warning message:
In mer_finalize(ans) : false convergence (8)
Thank you for your time, effort, and patience dealing with a novice.
Sincerely,
Nathan
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
