I am conducting an analysis predicting insect body sizes using a co-varying
trait and their biogeographic region within two model formulations using
The first model has the structure: log(Weight) ~ log(Trait)+ Biogeography +
Family (i.e. Taxonomic family of species)
The second model has the structure: log(Weight) ~ log(Trait)+ Biogeography +
(1|Species/Animal), pedigree = phylogeny, i.e. variance between species is
constrained by the branch lengths between the species.
The aim of running these two models is compare which is more predictive and to
increase usability: Including family is user-friendly (and easy for the end
user, especially if they’re not a taxonomist) whereas the phylogenetic model is
more attractive theoretically however from a predictive sense requires your
species of interest to be contained within the phylogeny used to fit the model,
Therefore, my question is how best can I compare these two models in model
selection? Can I compare them directly by their DIC weighting if the only
difference is the phylogenetic random term? Or is there be a better way to
compare them? So far, we are also comparing their performance based off k-fold
cross validation and RMSE but in the ‘age of AIC’, DIC appears a good place to
start for model selection.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
R-sig-phylo mailing list - Remail@example.com
Searchable archive at http://firstname.lastname@example.org/