1 / 39

DATA QUALITY and ANALYSIS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments

DATA QUALITY and ANALYSIS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments. Troy Wirth and David Pyke USGS – Biological Resources Division Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Corvallis, Oregon. U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey.

enan
Télécharger la présentation

DATA QUALITY and ANALYSIS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DATA QUALITY and ANALYSISStrategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments Troy Wirth and David Pyke USGS – Biological Resources Division Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Corvallis, Oregon U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey Supported by USGS - BLM Interagency Agreement #HAI040045

  2. Data Quality • Assess the ability of the data to determine treatment success • Ability to achieve high data quality will depend on variability • Calculate data quality variables • Confidence intervals (precision) • Alpha (p-value) & beta levels • Sample size estimation

  3. Confidence Intervals • Construct a simple confidence interval around data to determine precision of estimate • The narrower the confidence interval, the more precise the estimate • Must specify the alpha level • Alpha level, or type I error is the probability of declaring there is no difference when there is. • Specifies the width of the confidence interval (1 – alpha)

  4. From Elzinga et al. 1998

  5. Confidence Intervals

  6. Sample Size Estimation • Equations which estimate the number of samples required to meet your sampling objective • For single populations (quantitative objective) • Confidence level (Type I error rate) • Confidence interval width • For detecting difference between two populations • Confidence levels (Type I and II error rate) • Minimum detectable change • Iterative process

  7. = sample size required = alpha level for specified level of confidence = standard deviation = desired precision level (absolute term) Single Population Sample Size • Calculate sample size estimate for each parameter of interest • Result will depend on variability of data • For example, using equation for single population:

  8. Single Population Sample Size Estimation Example • Alpha = 0.1 • X = 18.5 % cover of perennial grass • S = 4.9 % cover • d = (18.5*0.2) = 3.7 • Initial sample = 5 Need 3 more samples (precision achieved 4.7)

  9. Improving Data Quality • In order to increase data quality (achieve sample size) you need to: • Reduce standard deviation (variability) • Increase the number of samples • In order to reduce sample size estimates without more samples you can: • Increase alpha (less confidence) • Increase precision or MDC (detect a larger difference)

  10. Graphical Analysis Using Confidence Intervals • Compare treatment results to quantitative objectives or control areas • Several types of analysis to fit your situation • Types of graphical analysis: • Comparison of treatment to quantitative standard • Seeded plants vs. quantitative standard • All plants at treatment plots change from time 1 to time 2 • Comparison of two populations (seeded/unseeded) • Treatment vs. control • Treatment vs. control (change from time 1 to time 2)

  11. Flowchart for Graphical Analysis Density

  12. Graphical Analysis(comparison to a standard) • Specify quantitative objective • Determine desired alpha level and precision • Collect data at treatment plots • Graph mean with confidence interval of desired width (typically 80 or 90%) • Graphically compare to quantitative standard to determine which situation exists • Need mean, standard deviation, and n • Use ES&R Equation spreadsheet to help

  13. Graphical Analysis(comparison to a quantitative objective) • Quantitative objective: 5 plants/m2 • Alpha level: 0.1 (90% Confidence Interval) • X = 7 plants/m2 • S = 1.3 plants/m2 • N = 5

  14. Comparison to a Quantitative Objective

  15. Comparison to a Quantitative Objective

  16. Comparison to a Quantitative Objective

  17. Comparison to a Quantitative Objective

  18. Graphical Analysis(Treatment v. Control) • Confidence interval of the difference between the treatment and control • Uses the difference between the means of two treatments and constructs a single CI using the variance from both estimates (SE) • A mean of 0 represents no difference between the two treatments • Express the quantitative objective as an absolute value or as a multiple of the control. • Use the mean and CI to make a determination of treatment effect

  19. Graphical Analysis(Treatment v. Control) • Using the ESR monitoring spreadsheet • Specify the desired alpha level • Enter the mean, standard deviation, and N from the data collected at the treatment and control plots • Specify the level of quantitative objective (multiple of control or absolute difference) • Make interpretation based on graphical analysis of the CI of the difference between the two treatments

  20. Graphical Analysis(Treatment v. Control) • Quantitative objective: twice that of control plot (2) – note that because it is a CI of difference the original amount is subtracted from quantitative objective • Alpha level: 0.1 (90% Confidence Interval) • Control • X = 2.0 • S = 0.5 • N = 7 • Treatment • X = 4.9 • S = 0.9 • N = 7

  21. Treatment vs. Control

  22. Treatment vs. Control B: The difference of the mean between is above the level of ecological significance, but the lower confidence limit for the difference is below the level of ecological significance.

  23. Treatment vs. Control

  24. Treatment vs. Control D: The mean and confidence interval of the difference is below the level of ecological significance. Conclude that there is no ecologically significant difference between the control and treatment plots.

  25. Treatment vs. Control

  26. Treatment vs. Control F: The mean of the difference is above 0, but the lower confidence limit is below 0 and the upper confidence limit is below the level of ecological significance.

  27. Flowchart for Graphical Analysis Density

  28. Graphical Analysis(Treatment vs. Control T2-T1) • Confidence interval of the difference in change between two time periods between treatment and control • Uses the difference between the change in the means of treatment and control and constructs a single CI using the variance from both estimates (SE) • A mean of 0 represents no difference in change between the two treatments • Express the quantitative objective as an absolute value or as a multiple of the control. • Use the mean and CI to make a determination of treatment effect

  29. Appears that there is a difference in year three when there actually was not. Accounting for initial difference in the degree of change

  30. Change in Treatment vs. Control B: The difference of the mean between is above the level of ecological significance, but the lower confidence limit for the difference is below the level of ecological significance.

  31. Graphical Analysis(Treatment at two time periods, T2-T1) • Confidence interval of the change between the two time periods • Treats the two time periods as paired, reducing variability • A mean of 0 represents no change between the two time periods • Express the quantitative objective as the desired change between the two different time periods • Use the mean and CI compared to the quantitative objective to make a determination of success

  32. Reporting Paste graphs directly into reports and describe quantitative results e.g. Perennial Grass Density The density of perennial grasses is significantly greater in the treatment plots as compared to the control plots. We are 90% confident that the difference is between 1.06 to 4.54 plants/m2 greater than the control plots with a mean of 2.8 plants/m2)

  33. Reporting • Link reports back to quantitative objectives • Re-assess whether objectives were reasonable and possible reasons for success and failure. • Make recommendations for future improvements to implementation and monitoring

More Related