Marie Cook

Zimmermann

ENVL 2400

March 2, 2010

Wild Horse Dataset Analysis

In order to interpret the wild horse dataset, I used SAS to generate statistics and figures that
would help me to better understand the effects of the population management treatment. First, I
generated a grand statistics report, a scatter plot, and histograms to examine the overall trend of the
data. To observe the situations unique to each management area, I sorted the data by location which
was then used to generate summary statistics and histograms. While measures of dispersion indicate
moderate to significant variation, I speculate that this may be due to a small sample size, as the same
group was measured only three or four times per year.

First, while analyzing the summary statistics report for combined data, that not separated by
location, some overall trends can be seen. In the control group, or group receiving Treatment 0, it
seems as though the average number of adults is increasing more or less at a steady rate. The average
number of foals increases from 1986-1987, then goes unchanged from 1987-1988. In the experimental
group, that given Treatment 1, average adults decreases from 1986-1987, then only slightly in 1988.
Average foals of this treatment group follow the same trend as the average adults. These trends are
also consistent when examining the median, which is less effected by extreme values than the mean.

While examining the figures generated by SAS, the same trends can be seen. In the scatter plot
showing average number of adults over time, the concentration of points shifts up in the range of the
control group, indicating growth, and down in that of the experimental group, indicating decline. In the
histograms, the same movement can be seen to the right and left in the control and experimental
groups, respectively. However, since this data is not separated by location, it is not clear what is
happening at each site. In order to avoid being misled by the statistics, it is necessary to take an extra
sorting step and examine the management areas individually.

Once the data has been separated by management area, it is clear that the trend seen in the
grand statistics report does not reflect what is actually happening according to the samples. When the
mean values for adults and foal are compared over time in the control group of the Beaty Butte
(location B), the numbers are both steadily increasing. In the experimental group, both numbers
decrease significantly from 1986-1987, but then change only slightly in 1988. At the Flanigan
management area, the adults in the control group increased pretty steadily. However, the foals
increased from 1986-1987, but decreased in 1988. The group that received treatment showed an
increase in adults from 1986-1987, and almost no change in 1988. Foals, on the other hand, showed a
decrease in numbers from 1986-1987 and no change in 1988. While examining the data more
specifically, it can be seen that although the treatment is initially effective in the first year in stunting the
amount of foals born, there is little or no change in the next year. The histograms pictorially represent
the shifts in frequency described above.

While the dataset did not include a measure of birthrate, for which average number of foals per
one hundred adults was noted to be a suitable estimate, I used Excel to generate these values. The
table is shown at the end of this analysis. Although the number of adults and foals each year gives us an
idea of the trends at each location, making the values relative to each other illustrates this more clearly.
At the Beaty Butte management area, the birthrate stays about the same in the control group, while
that of the experimental group decreases in the first year noticeably, but only slightly in the next. The
experimental group of the Flanigan site also shows this pattern, but with even less change in the second
year. So, while the researches wish to determine whether or not this is an effective strategy to control
the overpopulation of wild mustang populations for two or more years, I believe that the data suggests
not. This is due to the very slight decreases in number of adults and foals, as well as birthrates, in the
second year, from 1987-1988. If the trend continues, it seems that there will be even less, if any decline
in these values.

So far, I have compared mean values of different variables. However, the mean is not always
indicative of what is going on in a population. It is necessary to consider other measures like variance
and standard error to determine intervals over which values can be confidently expected. Since there is
no question as to whether the treatment group differed from the control in terms of number of foals
born when analyzing mean values, I ran t-tests on whether or not the treatment groups (Treatment = 1)
at each location experienced a decline in the number of foals born from year to year. Since t-tests are
robust when measuring testing mean values, the results can be trusted although distributions of these
populations may not necessarily be normal. To increase the accuracy of these results, and thus increase
the extent to which we can trust them, more samples could be collected.
 To determine whether or not the number of foals was decreasing from year to year, with
consideration to variance and standard error, I performed one-sample t-tests. I compared mean values
for number of foals between years to see if there was really a notable change. When using this method
to determine whether or not there was a decrease from 1986-1987, the test revealed that probably, the
mean number of foals at both locations decreased. For the change from 1987-1988, the mean number
of foals probably did not decrease at each location. (See SAS printouts of the t-tests for hypotheses and
conclusions.) This verifies the results we found when examining the means of variables by location.
Therefore, it is maintained through the use of one-sample t-tests that although the treatment was
probably useful in decreasing the average number of foals born, it was probably not successful the
second year. So, this management plan to control overpopulation of wild mustangs is most likely not
effective for two or more years.

To determine whether the populations at each of the different locations are responding to the
treatment the same, I ran two-sample t-tests of the mean and of variances. First, I analyzed the tests
done on the control group in order to detect any changes that occurred in the population that may have
not been a result of the treatment. However, the number of foals at each location is probably equal
according to the two-sample t-test. When examining the t-tests for the treatment group at each
location, a difference can be seen. In 1986, the first year the effects of the treatment were being
measured, the population at Location F showed a substantially lower number of foals than Location B.
For this reason, it seems that this population responded more sensitively to the treatment than did that
of Location B during the first year of treatment. In the next two years, however, the number of foals
was about the same at each location.

Although t-tests are somewhat robust to the assumption of a normally distributed population, f-
tests are very sensitive. Therefore, it was necessary to run the Univariate procedure for a normal
distribution to see how reliable the results of the tests are. Since I evaluated the foals by year, location,
and treatment in the t-tests, I broke down the analysis the same way in the Univariate procedure.
Unfortunately, when I evaluated the skewness, kurtosis, closeness of mean, median and mode, and
symmetry of quantiles, only two populations were found to be normally distributed, or closely so. These
were the adult population receiving treatment one at location B in 1986 and foals receiving treatment
zero at location B in 1986. Since none of the other populations were found to be normally distributed,
we cannot necessarily trust the results of the F and T-tests because of this departure from their
assumptions.
 The data given is useful in speculating about the dynamics of each area after the treatment was
administered, however, other data might have been included in order to better estimate the truth. For
example, data of years preceding the treatment would be useful in determining trends already existing
in the population. Also, to decrease random sampling variation, data could have been collected more
times over the course of each year.

Table 1. Average number of adults and foals are based on three to four observations per year.
Foals per one hundred adults is used to estimate birthrate and is the quantity of the average
number of foals divided by the average number of adults, multiplied by 100.