search for: hydroacoustics

...ember -1.80488 -1.81614 October -2.28896 -1.84266 October -2.4 -2.35319 #Commands lattice.options(default.args = list(as.table = TRUE)) xyplot(Log10_trawl_dens~Log10_echo_integration_dens | Month, data = (subset(T.A., Net_Type=="T")),ylim=c(-4,0),xlim=c(-4,0),xlab="Log density from hydroacoustics (integration)",ylab="Log density from Tucker trawl",main="Density estimates, Tucker Trawl", cex=1.5) Best, Paul S. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Greetings all The help file for GAMM in mgcv indicates that the log likelihood for a GAMM reported using summary(my.gamm$lme) (as an example) is not correct. However, in a past R-help post (included below), there is some indication that the likelihood ratio test in anova.lme(mygamm$lme, mygamm1$lme) is valid. How can I tell if anova.lme results are meaningful (are AIC, BIC, and logLik

Greetings This is a long email. I'm struggling with a data set comprising 2,278 hydroacoustic estimates of fish biomass density made along line transects in two lakes (lakes Michigan and Huron, three years in each lake). The data represent lakewide surveys in each year and each data point represents the estimate for a horizontal interval 1 km in length. I'm interested in comparing