U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 close



Research
                Research Home
                            National Programs
                            Research Projects
                            Scientific Manuscripts
                            International Engagement
                            Scientific Software/Models
                            Databases and Datasets
                            Office of Scientific Quality Review
            Media
                News & Features
                            Multimedia
                            Briefing Room
                            Down on the Farm
                            Press Room
                            Science in Your Shopping Cart
                            Scientific Discoveries
                            Tellus
                            Under the Microscope
            About ARS
                About ARS Home
                            Staff Directory
                            Labs and Research Centers (Map)
                            Headquarter Offices
                            Organizational Chart
                            Employee Services (REE Employees Only)
                            Office of Outreach, Diversity, and Equal Opportunity
            Work With Us
                Work With Us Home
                            ARS Vacancies at USAJOBS
                            Careers at ARS Information
                            Scientific Collaborations
                            Extramural Agreements
                            1890 Faculty Research Sabbatical ProgramSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Research Publications at this Location





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Title:   Author  item
                                            HURLBERT, STUART - SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVitem
                                            Meikle, William
  Submitted to: Journal of Economic Entomology
                                    Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
                                    Publication Acceptance Date: 7/1/2002
                                    Publication  Date: 7/1/2003
                                    Citation: HURLBERT, S.H., MEIKLE, W.G. PSEUDOREPLICATION, FUNGI, AND LOCUSTS. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY. 2003.Interpretive Summary: 1. Problem.  A paper was recently published, in the Journal of Economic Entomology, that reported results of a field experiment conducted over three weeks in November/ December, 1994, in Madagascar.  The experiment involved treating 1 ha plots of uncultivated land with different strains of native entomopathogenic fungi.  Each treatment was replicated twice (two 1 ha plots per treatment) plus a control were used, so the experiment was conducted over 10 ha.  Two kinds of insect traps were used, and 3 of each trap type were placed on each plot (6 traps total).  Traps were monitored 3 times after treatment - once every 10 days.  For each treatment the authors pooled all data for different plots, different trap types and different sampling occasions, and they conducted nonparametric tests to determine if the density and diversity of the beetle fauna were affected by the fungal treatments.  The authors did find that, according to their statistical tests, one isolate did apparently have an effect on beetle density and diversity, and they recommended that that isolate be tested further before release and that other researchers use their techniques.  However, in all their statistical analyses the authors committed a major statistical error called pseudoreplication (first described by S.H. Hurlbert, who is senior author on this paper). Because the paper deals with the effects of entomopathogens on nontarget insects, it is important that the data are analyzed properly.

2. Approach.  Our approach was very simple - we draw the author's attention to the error by describing the error, provide references concerning the seriousness of the error, and point out that none of the 142 statistical tests in the paper were valid and therefore none of the conclusions were valid.  We suggest the proper statistical analysis, and we recommend the journal provide space for a corrected analysis by the original authors.

3. Results.  The point of this paper is to draw the attention of the authors and journal readers to the seriousness and frequency of this type of error. That the statistics were improperly conducted does not mean that the fungi should not be tested further, nor that beetle density and diversity should not be taken into account in studies of this nature, but that the statistics used to arrive at those conclusions were invalid.
                                Technical Abstract: We review the statistical analyses and interpretations of an experiment on control methodologies for the migratory locust and their effects on beetle populations (Ivie et al., 2002, J. Econ. Entomol. 95:651), correct some of that paper¿s misinterpretations of the nature of pseudoreplication, point out that all 142 analyses presented represent a combination of temporal and sacrificial pseudoreplication, and determine that none of the paper¿s conclusions has any statistical support.  We suggest a concise manner in which the core information from the study might be re-presented after reanalysis of data.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov