Model simplification (two way ANOVA) - r

Question

I am using ANOVA to analyse results from an experiment to see whether there are any effects of my explanatory variables (Heating and Dungfauna) on my response variable (Biomass). I started by looking at the main effects and interaction:
full.model <- lm(log(Biomass) ~ Heating*Dungfauna, data= df)
anova(full.model)
I understand that it is necessary to complete model simplification, removing non-significant interactions or effects to eventually reach the simplest model which still explains the results. I tried two ways of removing the interaction. However, when I manually remove the interaction (Heating*Fauna -> Heating+Fauna), the new ANOVA gives a different output to when I use this model simplification 'shortcut':
new.model <- update(full.model, .~. -Dungfauna:Heating)
anova(model)
Which way is the appropriate way to remove the interaction and simplify the model?
In both cases the data is log transformed -
lm(log(CC_noAcari_EmergencePatSoil)~ Dungfauna*Heating, data= biomass)
ANOVA output from manually changing Heating*Dungfauna to Heating+Dungfauna:
Response: log(CC_noAcari_EmergencePatSoil)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Heating 2 4.806 2.403 5.1799 0.01012 *
Dungfauna 1 37.734 37.734 81.3432 4.378e-11 ***
Residuals 39 18.091 0.464
ANOVA output from using simplification 'shortcut':
Response: log(CC_noAcari_EmergencePatSoil)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Dungfauna 1 41.790 41.790 90.0872 1.098e-11 ***
Heating 2 0.750 0.375 0.8079 0.4531
Residuals 39 18.091 0.464

Answer 1

R's anova and aov functions compute the Type I or "sequential" sums of squares. The order in which the predictors are specified matters. A model that specifies y ~ A + B is asking for the effect of A conditioned on B, whereas Y ~ B + A is asking for the effect of B conditioned on A. Notice that your first model specifies Dungfauna*Heating, while your comparison model uses Heating+Dungfauna.
Consider this simple example using the "mtcars" data set. Here I specify two additive models (no interactions). Both models specify the same predictors, but in different orders:
add.model <- lm(log(mpg) ~ vs + cyl, data = mtcars)
anova(add.model)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
vs 1 1.22434 1.22434 48.272 1.229e-07 ***
cyl 1 0.78887 0.78887 31.103 5.112e-06 ***
Residuals 29 0.73553 0.02536
add.model2 <- lm(log(mpg) ~ cyl + vs, data = mtcars)
anova(add.model2)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
cyl 1 2.00795 2.00795 79.1680 8.712e-10 ***
vs 1 0.00526 0.00526 0.2073 0.6523
Residuals 29 0.73553 0.02536
You could specify Type II or Type III sums of squares using car::Anova:
car::Anova(add.model, type = 2)
car::Anova(add.model2, type = 2)
Which gives the same result for both models:
Sum Sq Df F value Pr(>F)
vs 0.00526 1 0.2073 0.6523
cyl 0.78887 1 31.1029 5.112e-06 ***
Residuals 0.73553 29
summary also provides equivalent (and consistent) metrics regardless of the order of predictors, though it's not quite a formal ANOVA table:
summary(add.model)
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 3.92108 0.20714 18.930 < 2e-16 ***
vs -0.04414 0.09696 -0.455 0.652
cyl -0.15261 0.02736 -5.577 5.11e-06 ***