Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

High productivity and carbohydrate storage ability of the Jerusalem artichoke make it a promising agricultural crop. The article "Leaf Gas Exchange and Tuber Yield in Jerusalem Artichoke Cultivars" (Field Crops Research [1991]: \(241-252\) ) reported on various plant characteristics. Consider the accompanying data on chlorophyll concentration \(\left(\mathrm{gm} / \mathrm{m}^{2}\right)\) for four varieties of Jerusalem artichoke: $$\begin{array}{lccll} \text { Variety } & \text { BI } & \text { RO } & \text { WA } & \text { TO } \\\ \text { Sample mean } & .30 & .24 & .41 & .33 \end{array}$$ Suppose that the sample sizes were \(5,5,4\), and 6, respectively, and also that MSE \(=.0130 .\) Do the data suggest that true average chlorophyll concentration depends on the variety? State and test the appropriate hypotheses using a significance level of \(.05\).

Short Answer

Expert verified
The answer cannot be precisely determined without performing the calculations. The calculations would allow comparison of the calculated F-statistic and the critical value from the F-distribution tables to make a final decision on accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis.

Step by step solution

01

Formulating Hypotheses

First, formulate the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis: the null hypothesis, \(H_0: \mu_{BI} = \mu_{RO} = \mu_{WA} = \mu_{TO}\), assumes that the average chlorophyll concentrations are equal for all varieties. The alternative hypothesis, \(H_a\), states that at least one of the means is different, i.e., the average concentrations are not all the same.
02

Calculating F-value

Next step is to calculate F-statistic using the ANOVA formula. But first calculate sum of squares between groups (SSB) using the formula, SSB = \(\Sigma n_i * (\bar{X}_i - \bar{X})^2\), where \(n_i\) is the sample size, \(\bar{X}_i\) is the sample mean, and \(\bar{X}\) is the overall sample mean. Here, the overall mean \(\bar{X}\) is the weighted average of the sample means, \(\bar{X} = \Sigma (n_i/\Sigma n_i ) * \bar{X}_i\). Then, the degrees of freedom between groups (df_B) is \(k-1\), where \(k\) is the number of groups. This gives us the mean squares between groups (MSB) as MSB = SSB/df_B.
03

Mean Squares Within

Use the given mean squares within groups (or groups' mean square error) MSE = 0.013, and the degrees of freedom within groups (df_W) is \(\Sigma n_i - k = (5 + 5 + 4 + 6) - 4 = 16\).
04

F-statistic and Critical Region

Find the F-statistic as the ratio of MSB to MSE. F = MSB/MSE. Then, the critical region is found using the F-distribution table with df_B, df_W degrees of freedom at a significance level of 0.05. The null hypothesis is rejected if F > critical value.
05

Final Conclusion

Depending on the comparison of the calculated F-statistic and the critical value, the null hypothesis can either be accepted or rejected. If the F-statistic is greater than the critical value, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the chlorophyll concentration does vary among the different varieties. If the F-statistic is not greater than the critical value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the data does not provide enough evidence to suggest the chlorophyll concentration depends on the variety of the plant.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The accompanying underscoring pattern appeared in the article "Effect of \(\mathrm{SO}_{2}\) on Transpiration, Chlorophyll Content, Growth, and Injury in Young Seedlings of Woody Angiosperms" ( \mathrm{\\{} C a n a d i a n ~ J o u r n a l ~ o f ~ F o r e s t ~ R e s e a r c h ~ [1980]: 78-81). Water loss of plants (Acer saccharinum) exposed to \(0,2,4,8\), and 16 hours of fumigation was recorded, and a multiple comparison procedure was used to detect differences among the mean water losses for the different fumigation durations. How would you interpret this pattern? $$\begin{array}{rrrrr} &\text { Duration of fumigation } &16 & 0 & 8 & 2 & 4 \\ &\text { Sample mean water loss } &27.57 & 28.23 & 30.21 & 31.16 & 36.21 \end{array}$$

An investigation carried out to study the toxic effects of mercury was described in the article "Comparative Responses of the Action of Different Mercury Compounds on Barley" (International Journal of Environmental Studies \([1983]: 323-327\) ). Ten different concentrations of mercury \((0,1,5,10,50,100,200,300,400\), and \(500 \mathrm{mg} / \mathrm{L})\) were compared with respect to their effects on average dry weight (per 100 seven- day-old seedlings). The basic experiment was replicated four times for a total of 40 dryweight observations (four for each treatment level). The article reported an ANOVA \(F\) statistic value of \(1.895 .\) Using a significance level of \(.05\), test the null hypothesis that the true mean dry weight is the same for all 10 concentration levels.

The article "Growth Response in Radish to Sequential and Simultaneous Exposures of \(\mathrm{NO}_{2}\) and \(\mathrm{SO}_{2} "(\) Environmental Pollution \([1984]: 303-325\) ) compared a control group (no exposure), a sequential exposure group (plants exposed to one pollutant followed by exposure to the second four weeks later), and a simultaneous-exposure group (plants exposed to both pollutants at the same time). The article states, "Sequential exposure to the two pollutants had no effect on growth compared to the control. Simultaneous exposure to the gases significantly reduced plant growth." Let \(\bar{x}_{1}, \bar{x}_{2}\), and \(\bar{x}_{3}\) represent the sample means for the control, sequential, and simultaneous groups, respectively. Suppose that \(\bar{x}_{1}>\bar{x}_{2}>\bar{x}_{3}\). Use the given information to construct a table where the sample means are listed in increasing order, with those that are judged not to be significantly different underscored. \(15.30\) The nutritional quality of shrubs commonly used for feed by rabbits was the focus of a study summarized in the article "Estimation of Browse by Size Classes for Snowshoe Hare" (Journal of Wildlife Management [1980]: \(34-40\) ). The energy content \((\mathrm{cal} / \mathrm{g})\) of three sizes \((4 \mathrm{~mm}\) or less, \(5-7 \mathrm{~mm}\), and \(8-10 \mathrm{~mm}\) ) of serviceberries was studied. Let \(\mu_{1}, \mu_{2}\), and \(\mu_{3}\) denote the true energy content for the three size classes. Suppose that \(95 \%\) simultaneous confidence intervals for \(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2}, \mu_{1}-\mu_{3}\), and \(\mu_{2}-\mu_{3}\) are \((-10,290),(150,450)\), and \((10,310)\), respectively. How would you interpret these intervals?

The article "Utilizing Feedback and Goal Setting to Increase Performance Skills of Managers" (Academy of Management Journal \([1979]: 516-526\) ) reported the results of an experiment to compare three different interviewing techniques for employee evaluations. One method allowed the employee being evaluated to discuss previous evaluations, the second involved setting goals for the employee, and the third did not allow either feedback or goal setting. After the interviews were concluded, the evaluated employee was asked to indicate how satisfied he or she was with the interview. (A numerical scale was used to quantify level of satisfaction.) The authors used ANOVA to compare the three interview techniques. An \(F\) statistic value of \(4.12\) was reported. a. Suppose that a total of 33 subjects were used, with each technique applied to 11 of them. Use this information to conduct a level \(.05\) test of the null hypothesis of no difference in mean satisfaction level for the three interview techniques. b. The actual number of subjects on which each technique was used was \(45 .\) After studying the \(F\) table, explain why the conclusion in Part (a) still holds.

Give as much information as you can about the \(P\) -value of the single-factor ANOVA \(F\) test in each of the following situations. a. \(k=5, n_{1}=n_{2} \equiv n_{3}=n_{4}=n_{5}=4, F=5.37\) b. \(k=5, n_{1}=n_{2}=n_{3}=5, n_{4}=n_{5}=4, F=2.83\) c. \(k=3, n_{1}=4, n_{2}=5, n_{3}=6, F=5.02\) d. \(k=3, n_{1}=n_{2}=4, n_{3}=6, F=15.90\) e. \(k=4, n_{1}=n_{2}=15, n_{3}=12, n_{4}=10, F=1.75\)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free