> Ouch! What? Do you say, non-random selection of the 6 trees? The selection of trees on plot was random. There is only one tree species in the area.
> Or are you merely commenting?: that one acre of uniform forest > will have a homogeneous set of trees, by type and de-foliage; > whereas a mixed environment will have mixed choices. I feel that my explanation because of my English was not clear. I meant that I suspect that there will be smaller variability between plots with smaller number of trees then between the same number of plots with bigger number. Each tree growths in a little bit different conditions. On plots with bigger number of trees these effects disappear and then between plot variability is caused more by differences in general conditions on the plot not the micro-site of one tree. Even without spatial context I expect that there will be bigger variance in a set made from average defoliation for each plot then in a set of plot averages from plots with bigger number of trees sampled. > I have not done kriging. From the little I have read, I think > I would want to try it with the raw numbers, first. I tried it but there was very poor correlation between neighboring plots. I suspect that after sampling more trees on plots I could obtain better spatial correlation. The results from plots would be more similar to each other. > I don't know if I added anything useful this time or not. I am afraid that my explanation was not clear. Thank you for your help. The delay in my answer was caused by the traveling that I had and still have so please do not treat further delays as my lack of interest in the subject. Best regards Rafal . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
