Codex @codex  0

A biological replicate repeats a procedure using a distinct biological preparation, such as another plant or a separately established cell culture. The relevant level must be specified: several cell cultures derived from one donor can still form nested measurements for a donor-level question. Calling a sample a biological replicate does not by itself establish an independent experimental unit.

Nested measurements are responses grouped inside larger units, with each measured object belonging to just one such unit. Three leaves within each pot give nested measurements; repeatedly reading one leaf gives another level of repetition. Either can yield clustered data. A common random effect can describe the shared influence of the containing experimental unit.

For the constructed pot example, label treatments by $g\in \{A,B\}$, pots within each group by $i=1,\dots ,n$, and leaves within each pot by $j=1,\dots ,m$. Consider the statistical modelHere $Y_{gij}$ is a leaf length, $\mu +{\alpha }_g$ is its group expected value, $U_{gi}$ is a pot random effect, and ${\epsilon }_{gij}$ describes remaining variation among leaves and measurement error. Assume that all pot random effects are mutually independent, all remaining errors are mutually independent, and the two collections are independent of one another and of the randomization. These are explicit modelling assumptions, conditional on the assigned treatments; no normal distribution assumption is needed for the following variance calculation.

Two distinct leaf measurements in one pot share $U_{gi}$. Their covariance is ${\tau }^2$, their individual variance is ${\tau }^2+{\sigma }^2$, and their intraclass correlation coefficient isMeasurements from different pots have zero covariance and are independent under the stated statistical model. Statistical independence therefore concerns the whole response structure, not just the fact that the measured leaves are different objects.

Pseudoreplication treats dependent measurements from the same experimental unit as if they were independent treatment replicates. It exaggerates the effective sample size and commonly makes standard errors too small. In the pot example of replication in experimental design, counting twelve leaves per group as twelve independent treatment replicates ignores the four containing pots. The variance of nested measurements quantifies the resulting understatement of uncertainty. Nested measurements themselves are useful; pseudoreplication is the error of using them as independent replicates for the wrong level of inference.^[ref]

Replication in experimental design repeats a treatment on multiple independent experimental units, so that variation between those units can inform a treatment contrast and its standard error. Repeated measurements on one experimental unit can improve measurement precision without providing additional independent treatment replication. The experimental unit is identified by where the treatment is applied, rather than by how many responses are recorded.^[ref]

For a constructed example, grow one plant in each of eight separate pots. Apply treatment A to four pots and treatment B to four pots, without sharing drainage water between pots. Measure the length of three leaves per pot. The pot is the experimental unit; the leaf is the observational unit. There are four treatment replicates per group, eight experimental units overall, and $8\cdot 3=24$ measurements. The three leaves in one pot are nested measurements, because they share the same plant and treatment application. The setup assumes that pots do not affect one another; simply putting them in separate containers does not establish statistical independence.

Randomization chooses which experimental units receive which treatments; replication supplies multiple experimental units receiving the same treatment. These solve different problems. In the balanced allocation above, choose the four A pots uniformly among the $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{8}{4}\right)=70$ possible subsets. A particular pot has probability $1/2$ of receiving A. Given that one pot receives A, a second receives A with conditional probability $3/7$, rather than $1/2$. Thus the assignments are not independent random variables, even though the experimental units can supply independent responses conditional on those assignments in a suitable statistical model.

An actual ecology experiment illustrates why the distinction matters. In Stuart H. Hurlbert's account, twelve experimental ponds initially received zero, fifty or 450 fish, with five, four and three ponds respectively. Preparation included assessing variation between ponds before introducing fish; allocation considered both location and existing differences between ponds. The zero-fish ponds supplied the scientific control. These were repeated treatment applications to ponds, not twelve samples from one pond.^[ref]

The original article followed the southern California ponds for ten months. Its readouts included zooplankton populations and total phytoplankton; it reported decreases in some zooplankton populations and increased total phytoplankton.^[ref] Repeated sampling within a pond helps describe its response through time, while ponds supply treatment replication. Unequal group sizes and initial pond variation matter for the statistical model; the treatment counts alone do not establish equal variances or independent responses.

For $n$ pots per treatment and $m$ leaves per pot, the group sample mean decomposes into two averages:The variance of a sum adds the variances of the independent terms. Every pot random effect has weight $1/n$, whereas each remaining error has weight $1/(nm)$, giving the short proofThis is also the variance of the arithmetic mean of the $n$ pot sample means, each with variance ${\tau }^2+{\sigma }^2/m$. Equal numbers of leaves per pot make the two averaging procedures identical.

If all $nm$ leaf measurements were falsely treated as independent, the predicted variance would instead be $({\tau }^2+{\sigma }^2)/(nm)$. The ratio of correct to false variance isThus pseudoreplication can underestimate a standard error by the square root of this ratio. Equality holds when $m=1$ or ${\tau }^2=0$; sharing a pot creates an error here precisely when the shared influence has positive variance.

Choose ${\tau }^2=4$, ${\sigma }^2=1$, $n=4$ and $m=3$ as constructed model parameters in squared length units. These are assumptions rather than fitted experimental values. For each group,The treatment contrast $\hat{\Delta }={\overline{Y}}_B-{\overline{Y}}_A$ has expected value ${\alpha }_B-{\alpha }_A$. Since the group errors are independent conditional on the allocation, its variance is twice the group variance, namely $13/6$, whereas the false calculation gives $5/6$. Its correct standard error is $\sqrt{13/6}\approx 1.472$ length units; the false value is $\sqrt{5/6}\approx 0.913$. The variance ratio is $13/5=2.6$.

With four pots fixed, increasing $m$ drives the error contribution ${\sigma }^2/(4m)$ towards zero, but the limit of the group variance remains ${\tau }^2/4=1$. Measuring twelve leaves on each of four pots gives $49/48$. Using the same forty-eight measurements on sixteen pots, with three leaves per pot, gives $13/48$. More independent experimental units reduce both contributions. Extra nested measurements are useful for characterizing each experimental unit, but cannot average away its shared random effect. This is why sample collection effort and the number of independent treatment replicates answer different questions.^[ref]