Wild Horses

Population Management on Federal Lands

SAS Analyst Report

Katharine Riche

Professor George Zimmerman

March 22, 2011

 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….page 4

Methodology………………………………………………………………………………...page 5

Results/Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..page 7

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………...……..page 8

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………….page 9

Excel Spreadsheet………………………………………………………………..………...page 10

PROC UNIVARIATE

1. Adults, Location B and Location F

a. Notes…………………………………………………………………...page 11

b. Graphs………………………………………………………………….page 14

c. Two Sample F-test……………………………………………………..page 20

d. Two Sample T-tests…………………………………………………….page 21

2. Foals, Location B and Location F

a. Notes…………………………………………………………………...page 24

b. Graphs…………………………………………………………….……page 27

c. Two Sample F-test…………………………………………………..…page 33

d. Two Sample T-tests……………………………………………………page 34

3. Adults, Treatment 0 and Treatment 1

a. Notes…………………………………………………………………page 37

b. Graphs………………………………………………………………..page 40

c. Two Sample F-test……………………………………………………page 46

2
 d. Two Sample T-tests………………………………………………….....page 47

4. Foals, Treatment 0 and Treatment 1

a. Notes…………………………………………………………………...page 50

b. Graphs……………………………………………………………….…page 53

c. Two Sample F-test……………………………………………………..page 59

d. Two Sample T-tests…………………………………………………….page 60

3
 Introduction

Three researchers by the names of Eagle, Asa, and Garrott designed an experiment that

could potentially help manage the wild horse population on federal lands. They suggested hat

the dominant male in each group should be sterilized as a way to reduce foaling rates for two or

more years. They designated two herd management areas, one in Flanigan in northwest Nevada

and another in Beauty Butte in southeast Oregon. In December of 1985 they rounded up wild

horses in bands, counted them, determined their sex, established their age by tooth wear, and

photographed and put numbered collars on the horses that were three years of age or older.

Then, they identified the dominate male in each band and performed the vasectomy and put a

radio-transmitting collar on him. Finally, they released the horses in the designated areas. Both

Flanigan and Beauty Butte also had bands of horses whose dominant males were not sterilized.

This acted as a control so that the researchers could compare data and determine whether or not

sterilizing the males was an effective way to reduce foaling rates. For the next three years, the

researchers went to Flanigan and Beauty Butte three or four times each year. Each time, they

located the sterile males and recorded the number of adult, the number of sterile males, and the

number of foals. They also recorded the number of adults and the number of foals in bands with

no sterile males. After three years, the researchers had a set of data that included the number of

adults, the number of sterile males, the number of foals, the year the band of horses was located,

the location of the horses, the date of observation, and the treatment type: 0=not sterilized and

1=sterilized (see Excel Spreadsheet). The following report is a product of organizing the data,

forming questions, and running tests on SAS Analyst to determine if sterilizing the dominant

males was an effective way to reduce foaling rates for two or more years.

4
 Methodology

To analyze the data, I first looked at the data and organized the information. During the

year of 1986, the researchers went to the Flanigan management area three times and the Beauty

Butte management area three times. Each time, they recorded the number of adults and foals for

both sterilized and unsterilized groups. In 1987, they went to Flanigan three times and Beauty

Butte four times and recorded the number of adults and foals for both sterilized and unsterilized

groups. In 1988, they visited both areas three times and recorded the number of adults and foals

for both groups. Looking at the data they recorded over the course of three years, it was clear

that in both management areas, the number of adults in sterilized groups was less than the

number of adults in unsterilized groups. This was also true for the number of foals. Also, when

comparing data recorded for each year, the number of foals just from sterilized groups decreased

(see Excel Spreadsheet).

Next, I ran PROC UNIVARIATE on SAS Analyst to determine whether or not the

populations of wild horses were normally distributed. I chose to look at the number of adults

within each location, the number of foals within each location, the number of adults from groups

of both treatment types, and the number of foals from groups of both treatment types. Looking

at the two locations could help the researchers see whether or not one location was a better

environment for wild horses than the other. Looking at sterilized groups of wild horses versus

unsterilized groups of wild horses could help the researchers determine whether or not the

number of adults and foals were influenced by the treatments. I went through each set of data

that I chose to look at and found that based on the information and the graphs, the variables

range from being close to normal to further away from normal. I think this range is due to the

wide differences in numbers of adults and foals. These differences seem to be due to the type of

5
treatment the group was given. There are greater than 100 adults recorded each time for

unsterilized groups and less than 100 adults recorded each time for sterilized groups (see Excel

Spreadsheet). After I looked at the number of adults and foals for each location and the number

of adults and foals for each type of treatment, I thought about how the number of sterile males

affects the number of foals, but since the type of treatment affects the number of sterile males, I

did not make that a separate set of data to look at on SAS. I also assumed that the number of

sterile males was probably incorporated into the number of adults, but that information was not

clear.

Skewness is supposed to equal 0 to be normal, but all of them had a positive skew.

Kurtosis is also supposed to equal 0, but some were positive, or leptokurtic, and others were

negative, or platykurtic. The mean, median, and mode of each set of data are supposed to be

equal to each other, but most are slightly off or more than slightly off. I made notes on each part

of the PROC UNIVARIATE and on the graphs (see PROC UNIVARIATE, notes and graphs).

Most of the graphs were not very close to being normally distributed and some were very far off.

Even though I was not sure whether or not the information was close enough to normal, I ran F

tests and T tests for all of the scenarios and came up with one-tailed and two-tailed questions

(see PROC UNIVARIATE, Two Sample F-tests and T-tests). These questions were based on

variance, mean, the influence of location on the adult and foal populations, and the influence of

treatment on the adult and foal populations. Lastly, I evaluated the data produced from running

the F and T tests and answered the question by setting up the null hypothesis and the alternate

hypothesis. By using the data I was able to write a statistical conclusion and an English

conclusion.

6
 Results/Discussion

First, I looked at the influence of location on the number of adults. After looking at

variance among both locations, I concluded that the variances were the same and therefore I used

the equal variance T-Test. I asked the question: Is the mean number of adults in Beauty Butte

and Flanigan the same? My English conclusion was probably, the mean number of adults in

Beauty Butte and Flanigan are the same. This showed that although the recorded number of

adults in both locations had a wide range due to treatment type, the location itself did not have a

huge influence on the means. I also did both one-tailed T-tests to see if one location had a

greater influence on the number of adults than the other. Location is important because if the

location is not ideal for wild horses (i.e. if there is a lack of food or water), than it could have an

effect on the number of horses as a group and on the foaling rates (see Adults, Location B and

Location F, PROC UNIVARIATE, Two-Sample T-tests). I also looked at the influence of

location on the number of foals. An F-test and different T-tests were completed to look at

similar questions I asked for the adults (see Foals, Location B and Location F, PROC

UNIVARIATE, Two-Sample T-tests).

Second, I decided to look at the influence of treatment on the number of adults. I

completed an F-test and concluded that I should use the equal variance T-test. I asked the

question: Is the mean number of adults from the sterilized group the same as the number of

adults from the unsterilized group? My English conclusion was probably, the mean number of

adults is not the same for both treatments. This conclusion showed that the type of treatment did

have a significant influence on the number of adults that were recorded during each visit to the

management areas. I did both one-tailed T-tests to see if one treatment had a greater effect on

the number of horses than the other (Adults, Treatment 0 and Treatment 1, PROC

7
UNIVARIATE, Two-Sample T-tests). I also looked at the influence of treatment type on the

number of foals and completed an F-test and T-tests (Foals, Treatment 0 and Treatment 1, PROC

UNIVARIATE, Two-Sample T-tests).

Conclusions

The data gathered by Eagle, Asa, and Garrot did support their suggestion that sterilizing

the dominate males in wild horse populations would reduce the foaling rates for two or more

years. By looking at the data they recorded alone, I concluded that although location may not

have had a significant impact on the number of adults and foals, the type of treatment (sterilized

or unsterilized) did. In general, there were far less adults and foals in sterilized groups compared

to the adults and foals in unsterilized groups. This was true for both locations. As I continued to

look at the data and ask questions based on variance, mean, and whether or not location or type

of treatment had an effect on the number of adults or foals, I was able to draw up a few more

conclusions.

The data seemed to come from populations that were close to normally distributed and

possibly even non-normally distributed. The conclusions for the F-tests and T-tests about

location seemed to coincide with what I inferred from the dataset, which was that location did

not have a large impact on the number of adults and foals. The conclusions for the F-tests and T-

tests were not so easily made because there was an unequal variance, which led me to use the

unequal variance T-test and I had some undetermined results. However, this helped me realize

that there may have been a lot of room for error during this experiment.

In 1986, the researchers went to both locations three separate times. Each time they

went they counted the number of adults, the number of sterile males (may have been 0 if the

group they were counting was part of the unsterilized group), and the number of foals. Before

8
they began this though, they photographed and collared all the horses that were 3 years of age or

older and I assumed that the horses that were less than 3 years of age would be counted as foals.

They did not mention whether or not they rechecked tooth wear on previously distinguished foals

each year they visited. This is important because many of them could have turned three years

old or more during the course of this experiment, but the researchers may have been counting

them as foals and not adults. Also, since the population size of sterilized groups were smaller

from the beginning, it is hard to say whether or not the birth rate decreased by a lot because the

ratio of the numbers may be fairly close. There are also many confounding factors such as diet,

climate, and health that could have affected the populations over the three year study.

9
 Appendix

*The original appendix of this paper was made up of printed out SAS Analyst
procedures that had hand written statistical analyses and conclusions. The
following is a few examples of descriptive and inferential statistics.

PROC UNIVARIATE:
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: Adults (Adults)
Location = B

Moments

N 20 Sum Weights 20
Mean 102.35 Sum Observations 2047
Std Deviation 56.7786793 Variance 3223.81842
Skewness 0.2545658 Kurtosis -1.6895546
Uncorrected SS 270763 Corrected SS 61252.55
Coeff Variation 55.4750164 Std Error Mean 12.6960987

Basic Statistical Measures

Location Variability

Mean 102.3500 Std Deviation 56.77868

Median 92.0000 Variance 3224
Mode . Range 156.00000
Interquartile Range 115.00000

Tests for Location: Mu0=0

Test -Statistic- -----p Value------

Student's t t 8.061532 Pr > |t| <.0001

Sign M 10 Pr >= |M| <.0001
Signed Rank S 105 Pr >= |S| <.0001

Quantiles (Definition 5)

Quantile Estimate

100% Max 192.0

99% 192.0
95% 185.0
90% 175.5
75% Q3 164.0
50% Median 92.0
25% Q1 49.0
10% 39.0
5% 37.0
1% 36.0

10
 0% Min 36.0

The UNIVARIATE Procedure

Variable: Adults (Adults)
Location = B

Extreme Observations

----Lowest---- ----Highest---

Value Obs Value Obs

36 17 169 6
38 20 170 9
40 16 173 7
44 18 178 10
45 19 192 8

The UNIVARIATE Procedure

Variable: Adults (Adults)
Location = F

Moments

N 18 Sum Weights 18
Mean 119 Sum Observations 2142
Std Deviation 85.264295 Variance 7270
Skewness 0.28057448 Kurtosis -1.7282742
Uncorrected SS 378488 Corrected SS 123590
Coeff Variation 71.6506681 Std Error Mean 20.0969871

Basic Statistical Measures

Location Variability

Mean 119.0000 Std Deviation 85.26429

Median 100.5000 Variance 7270
Mode 36.0000 Range 218.00000
Interquartile Range 161.00000

Tests for Location: Mu0=0

Test -Statistic- -----p Value------

Student's t t 5.921286 Pr > |t| <.0001

Sign M 9 Pr >= |M| <.0001
Signed Rank S 85.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001

Quantiles (Definition 5)

Quantile Estimate

11
 100% Max 243.0
99% 243.0
95% 243.0
90% 240.0
75% Q3 197.0
50% Median 100.5
25% Q1 36.0
10% 30.0
5% 25.0
1% 25.0
0% Min 25.0

The UNIVARIATE Procedure

Variable: Adults (Adults)
Location = F

Extreme Observations

----Lowest---- ----Highest---

Value Obs Value Obs

25 32 197 25
30 36 226 24
31 34 232 21
35 33 240 28
36 37 243 27

F-TEST:
Two Sample Test for Variances of Adults within Location

Sample Statistics

Location
Group N Mean Std. Dev. Variance
--------------------------------------------------
B 20 102.35 56.779 3223.818
F 18 119 85.264 7270

Hypothesis Test

Null hypothesis: Variance 1 / Variance 2 = 1

Alternative: Variance 1 / Variance 2 ^= 1

- Degrees of Freedom -
F Numer. Denom. Pr > F
----------------------------------------------
0.44 19 17 0.0896

12
TWO SAMPLE EQUAL-VARIANCE T-TEST:

Two Sample t-test for the Means of Adults within Location

Sample Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

----------------------------------------------------
B 20 102.35 56.779 12.696
F 18 119 85.264 20.097

Hypothesis Test

Null hypothesis: Mean 1 - Mean 2 = 0

Alternative: Mean 1 - Mean 2 ^= 0

If Variances Are t statistic Df Pr > t

----------------------------------------------------
Equal -0.715 36 0.4791
Not Equal -0.700 29.13 0.4892

13