Abstract
AbstractProbability values were compared among randomized intervention analysis (RIA) and untransformed and loge‐transformed two‐factor analyses of variance (anova) to test effects of fish stocking and a public relations programme on angler effort. The data set consisted of a time series of angler vehicle counts at single control and impact locations in a before–after‐control‐impact (BACI) experimental design. A randomized complete block anova indicated that probability values from RIA and the untransformed and loge‐transformed two‐factor anova did not differ significantly (P = 0.345), and that they did not result in different conclusions concerning angler effort. Randomized intervention analysis is superior to two‐factor anova in not having to conform with assumptions of parametric statistics, and it tests for temporal autocorrelation. Two‐factor anova is superior to RIA in providing statistical inferences about possible differences in main effects, i.e. control and impact locations and pre‐ and post‐treatment periods, if the interaction term is non‐significant. To achieve the most comprehensive analysis, it is recommended that both RIA and two‐factor anova (whether untransformed or transformed) be performed during field experiments of angler effort when using a BACI design at single control and treatment locations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
