2018
DOI: 10.1590/2317-1545v40n3185259
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why analyze germination experiments using Generalized Linear Models?

Abstract: We compared the goodness of fit and efficiency of models for germination. Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) were performed with a randomized component corresponding to the percentage of germination for a normal distribution or to the number of germinated seeds for a binomial distribution. Lower levels of Akaikes’s Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) combined, data adherence to simulated envelopes of normal plots and corrected confidence intervals for the means guaranteed the bin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The normal model produced the worst fit when compared to the other models, even with the residuals presenting a normal distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk test (W = 0.961; P = 0.115) and homoscedastic variances based on Levene's test (F = 1.502; P = 0.174). This result demonstrates that even if the data meet the assumptions of normality, the normal distribution is not always the distribution that best represents them, which is corroborated by a study conducted by Carvalho, Santana, and Araújo (2018) using copaiba seed germination data, in which a GLM with a binomial distribution fit best, even when the assumptions of linear models were met. Similarly, Sileshi (2012) used non-normal rapeseed data from Piepho (2003) and reported better performance with a GLM than with the arcsine transformation   / 100 y of the data.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 53%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The normal model produced the worst fit when compared to the other models, even with the residuals presenting a normal distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk test (W = 0.961; P = 0.115) and homoscedastic variances based on Levene's test (F = 1.502; P = 0.174). This result demonstrates that even if the data meet the assumptions of normality, the normal distribution is not always the distribution that best represents them, which is corroborated by a study conducted by Carvalho, Santana, and Araújo (2018) using copaiba seed germination data, in which a GLM with a binomial distribution fit best, even when the assumptions of linear models were met. Similarly, Sileshi (2012) used non-normal rapeseed data from Piepho (2003) and reported better performance with a GLM than with the arcsine transformation   / 100 y of the data.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…In comparison, the normal model had the highest AIC (331.91) and BIC (356.23) indices. Thus, considering that simpler models better explain the data than more complex models (AIC and BIC, 2004;Araújo, 2018) and the normal distribution was expressed in a less general way, this distribution incurred a higher penalty due to the presence of additional parameters that made the model more complex and, consequently, a worse estimator. The normal model produced the worst fit when compared to the other models, even with the residuals presenting a normal distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk test (W = 0.961; P = 0.115) and homoscedastic variances based on Levene's test (F = 1.502; P = 0.174).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations