Dear Dr. Ben Bolker,

    Thank you very much for answering me so fast, and kindly.

    I do not have exactly 1.00 in my response. Actually, what I did have
was zeros, but I took them off before the analysis, so I could use the
glmmadmb with the beta distribution, because it didn’t work with them. Of
course, before remove them I did some tests to make sure that didn’t had
an influence on what I want to know, but like I told you yesterday, even
taken zeros away; I still have a distribution skewed to the left.

    Do you think that it is correct to have included the ZI kluge, even
though I don’t have zeros in the data? Is this necessary because I have so
many values close to zero?

    Regards, and thank you again,

    Patricia

    Ben Bolker &lt;bbolker@gmail.com> escribió:
> Hash: SHA1
>
>   On 13-03-18 07:44 AM, MARTINEZ GUTIERREZ, PATRICIA GUADALUPE wrote:  >
>>    I’m doing a PhD in Ecology in Spain. I want to evaluate the effect
>>    of some methods over a similarity index (continuous variable from 0
>>    to 1) obtained between several localities, controlling by the
>>    distance (km) between them, and considering the identity of the
>>    localities as random effects.
>>
>>    I used the beta distribution to model my response, in the glmmADMB
>>    package (version 0.7.4) in R, but it didn’t work until I set the
>>    admb control options as follows:
>>
>>    Noinit=FALSE Shess=FALSE ZI_kluge=TRUE
>>
>>    Regarding to the “ZI_kluge”, I wonder what do you mean with “retain
>>    a zero-inflation term of 0.001”? Can you give me an example, or
>>    recommend me some papers?
>   It means that there is still a zero-inflation model implemented with
>   a zero-inflation probability of 0.001, i.e. there is assumed to be a
>   0.001 probability of zero and a 0.999 probability of non-zero responses.
>
>   Do you have similarity indices of exactly 1.0?
>
>   Further questions should go to r-sig-mixed-models@r-project.org
>> left skewed.
>>
>>    Regards, and thank you very much for your help,
>>
>>    Patricia Martinez
>   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>   Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>   Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>   iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRRx+4AAoJEOCV5YRblxUHe5UH/AmFKFIgxs38KO0kbTgJDpQj
>   9kC2vMIW4XTDKLr+Od9aGn2uRlnigSpal5EAPUIby1ZJ/WSmsogbR3/WGB/XUMnR
>   vTRuAwT2zC6zanONn+NK2zjRiRzC5E178ssqIp3MssDVpntW56YKNbOrj609zksn
>   sxHKC8kpVzNG1i7qyfkRX642uu/cNiJcdlAD9q4fmv8MaXGjiyo2KXOh0S94B2pN
>   GgllqXQmRhjcJyBGAzSutLpo2iEK0ggxSatQxiNVdaiSRJ18l1P2u58xGDAv34kp
>   +eetKP99X5lQsfuaLsbEdmRs4lsofHkYGdttBNmBmfQgufVY3zGozLV01WBm1VU=
>   =tDrz-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

