This question already has an answer here:
I am PhD Biologist. I have 5 populations of infected moth larvae (3 inbred, and 2 outbred). The infection in this case is spread vertically (from mother or father to offspring). Normally the virus is spread horizontally.
Analyses through GLM, GLMMs and (arcsine transformed) LMMs reveals that there is no significant difference between these populations. (Note: as block and day larvae were analysed for infection through PCR where ordered events, it could be argued that they are fixed or random effect hence GLM and GLMM analysis. Arcsine tranfomed LMMs are occasionally used for proportional data when events or very rare or very common.)
I suspect that the generally low infection rate may mean that although the number of larval hosts is high, the number of infected hosts is low, leading to a small sample size. Hence the non-significant result. Would it be the case that if the experiment were repeated, an unfeasably large sample size would be needed to show any difference between the populations? Therefore, would looking at a similar moth virus, with a greater rate of vertical transmission be a better idea, than pursuing it in this system?
I want to do a power analyses of the to verify this, for the write up. I understand that power analyses is done in the planning of experiments. Could it give you an idea of whether an unfeasably large sample size is needed to show an effect? I have had no experience of doing this, so if anybody could point me to books or webpages that could help I would be grateful.
The data is available under the name