I'm modeling the likelihood of forest recovery from fire (data here), using glmtrees from the partykit
package. I'm quite new to this approach and CV, so I appreciate any guidance. (I think this question fits here in CV as it's about interpreting statistical results...)
I'd like to understand why adding a new possible partitioning variable in my glmtree formula seemingly removes another partitioner from the final tree, even though that new one is not included in the final tree. This first tree does NOT use def59_z_13 as a possible partitioner and here's the result:
tree.mob.pipo.v1 <- glmtree(regen_pipo ~ YEAR.DIFF
| BALive_pipo + BALiveTot
+ CMD_1995 + MAP_1995
+ REBURN
+ FIRE.SEV,
data = data.pipo,
family = binomial(link = "logit"),
minsplit = 50)
...but including def59_z_13 suggests that FIRE.SEV is no longer an important partitioning variable:
tree.mob.pipo.v2 <- glmtree(regen_pipo ~ YEAR.DIFF
| BALive_pipo + BALiveTot
+ CMD_1995 + MAP_1995
+ def59_z_13
+ REBURN
+ FIRE.SEV,
data = data.pipo,
family = binomial(link = "logit"),
minsplit = 50).
FIRE.SEV and def59_z_13 are not well correlated so why does adding def59_z_13 suddenly make FIRE.SEV less significant in my model? Shouldn't the instability associated with FIRE.SEV remain the same such that there's still a break-point in FIRE.SEV?
Thanks for any thoughts!