A comparison of randomized intervention analysis and two-factor analysis of variance for analysis of angler effort in a floodplain river fishery

摘要

Probability values were compared among randomized intervention analysis (RIA) and untransformed and log(e) -transformed two-factor analyses of variance (anova) to test effects of fish stocking and a public relations programme on angler effort. The data set consisted of a time series of angler vehicle counts at single control and impact locations in a before-after-control-impact (BACI) experimental design. A randomized complete block anova indicated that probability values from RIA and the untransformed and log(e) -transformed two-factor anova did not differ significantly (P = 0.345), and that they did not result in different conclusions concerning angler effort. Randomized intervention analysis is superior to two-factor anova in not having to conform with assumptions of parametric statistics, and it tests for temporal autocorrelation. Two-factor anova is superior to RIA in providing statistical inferences about possible differences in main effects, i.e. control and impact locations and pre- and post-treatment periods, if the interaction term is non-significant. To achieve the most comprehensive analysis, it is recommended that both RIA and two-factor anova (whether untransformed or transformed) be performed during field experiments of angler effort when using a BACI design at single control and treatment locations.