I have a data set containing various vegetation and geomorphic variables sampled in 3 distances on both sides of 43 drainage ditches (Location). Roughly half of these ditches are occupied by a beaver, the other half is empty. Now I want to run a model with the binomial response variable Status ("beaver == 1" / "beaver == 0")

I'm struggling with the order and layout of the nested and interaction effects using glmer. So far I've got

fit <- glmer(Status ~ BankslopeScaled + Connectivity + 
                      Canal_width + Distance:Food_crops + 
                      Distance:Edible_trees + 
                (1 | Distance/Side/Location), 
              data, family=binomial(link="logit")

but I'm not sure if I still have pseudoreplication in my data or whether I correctly applied the formula in order to estimate the influence of the predictors in every distance on both sides in each Location.

Like, if food_crops in the 3rd distance on the left side is lower than edible_trees in the 2nd distance on the right side, then ...

I feel like there's something wrong with my random effects-term.

My output looks like this:


Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) ['glmerMod']
Family: binomial  ( logit )
Formula: Status ~ BankslopeScaled + Connectivity + Canal_width + Distance:Food_crops +  
Distance:Edible_trees + (1 | Distance/Side/Location)
Data: Satz

     AIC      BIC   logLik deviance df.resid 
   314.6    360.8   -144.3    288.6      245 

Scaled residuals: 
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-2.18541 -0.71205  0.07243  0.82483  1.75303 

Random effects:
 Groups                   Name        Variance  Std.Dev. 
 Location:(Side:Distance) (Intercept) 2.834e-02 1.683e-01
 Side:Distance            (Intercept) 2.074e-10 1.440e-05
 Distance                 (Intercept) 2.085e-10 1.444e-05
 Number of obs: 258, groups:  Location:(Side:Distance), 258; Side:Distance, 6; Distance, 3

 Fixed effects:
                        Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
 (Intercept)            -2.86517    0.79747  -3.593 0.000327 ***
 BankslopeScaled         1.76475    0.62541   2.822 0.004776 ** 
 Connectivity            0.10394    0.02729   3.809 0.000140 ***
 Canal_width             0.19138    0.11089   1.726 0.084364 .  
 Distance1:Food_crops    0.03667    0.09366   0.391 0.695441    
 Distance2:Food_crops    0.10852    0.08996   1.206 0.227694    
 Distance3:Food_crops    0.06303    0.08502   0.741 0.458510    
 Distance1:Edible_trees  0.02273    0.01327   1.712 0.086818 .  
 Distance2:Edible_trees -0.01750    0.02992  -0.585 0.558738    
 Distance3:Edible_trees  0.09769    0.07986   1.223 0.221201    
 Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

 [correlation of fixed effects snipped]    

A point into the right direction is much appreciated!


A few things to keep in mind:

  • You probably shouldn't treat Distance as a random effect in any case (estimates of random effects with only 3 levels are very unreliable)
  • You already implicitly have the main effects of Distance in your model through the Distance:Food_crops and Distance:Edible_trees interactions.
  • ... for both these reasons, you should leave Distance out of your random-effects specification: (1 | Distance:Side) + (1 | Distance:Side:Location) should work to include the two lower nested levels.
  • you will still probably find that the (1|Distance:Side) random effect has variance of effectively zero ... but you might as well leave it in.
  • $\begingroup$ Tanks a lot!! The random effect variance of (1|Distance:Side) is indeed actually zero. And so is is (1|Distance:Side:Location). That's peculiar... And another thing came to my mind: Most of the time, Edible_trees and Food_crops and other variables differed hugely on both Sides of one Location, regardless of their apparant promximity to each other. So, Side does not necessarily have to be included as a random effect after all, although I feel I somehow should tell the model that there are 2 Sides in each Location. Is there a possibility to account for that? Thanks again. $\endgroup$ – Ruben Apr 6 '15 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ edit: Side should not be a random effect anyways. I just have to weave that in somehow. $\endgroup$ – Ruben Apr 6 '15 at 12:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.