Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments

Zeynel Cebeci; Melis Çelik Güney; Uğur Serbester

doi:10.15832/ankutbd.1727052

Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments

Abstract

Comparing two groups holds significant importance in statistical analysis across various fields, including agriculture, where performance evaluations are commonly conducted. Conventional parametric and nonparametric tests primarily focus on differences in central tendencies, often neglecting distributional variations, especially across quantiles. This study explores the potential of resampling techniques, such as bootstrapping and permutation tests, in enhancing group comparisons beyond traditional measures like means and medians. Using both simulated and real agricultural datasets, the study demonstrates how quantile-based comparisons supported by resampling methods provide deeper insights into group differences. The results highlight that relying solely on central measures can overlook substantial variations in the distributional tails, emphasizing the necessity of a comprehensive examination of quantiles. Moreover, the findings show that permutation tests, which align with classical methods for central measures, offer a robust, assumption-free alternative that captures higher-order characteristics like skewness and kurtosis. Bootstrapping with the Biascorrected and Accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals also prove to be a reliable tool for estimating sampling distributions. A notable observation is that quantile-based comparisons can detect significant differences in distributional tails, even when conventional tests fail to identify discrepancies in medians. This underscores the power of quantile comparison in unveiling subtle yet critical differences between groups, offering a richer and more precise inferential framework. The study concludes by advocating the adoption of resampling-based quantile comparison methods in agricultural research, as they significantly enhance the detection of distributional differences and bolster the overall rigor of statistical analyses.

Keywords

References

Amerise I L & Tarsitano A (2015). Correction methods for ties in rank correlations. Journal of Applied Statistics, 42(12): 2584–2596.
Anscombe F J (1973). Graphs in statistical analysis. The American Statistician 27(1): 17-21
Banfi F, Cazzaniga G & De Michele C (2022). Nonparametric extrapolation of extreme quantiles: a comparison study. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 36(6): 1579-1596
Canty A & Ripley B (2024). boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package version 1.3-31 Cebeci Z (2020). Applied Resampling Techniques Using R. 2nd Ed., Pegem Akademi Yayıncilik, Ankara. 650 p. ISBN: 9786257052603 (In Turkish).
Dai S, Gao H M & Xiao Z C (2009). Research on data analysis of small sample based on bootstrap method. Journal of Naval Acronautical and Astronautical University 24(1): 27-30
Dhar S S, Chakraborty B & Chaudhuri P (2014). Comparison of multivariate distributions using quantile–quantile plots and related tests. Bernoulli 20(3): 1484-1506
Efron B (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics 7(1): 1-26
Harrell F E & Davis C E (1982). A new distribution free quantile estimator. Biometrika 69(3): 635-640

Hesamian G, Chukhrova N & Johannssen A (2023). Statistical inference on quantiles of two independent populations under uncertainty. Soft Computing 27(23): 17573-17583
Hird C, Barham K E & Franklin C E (2024). Looking beyond the mean: quantile regression for comparative physiologists. Journal of Experimental Biology 227(5)
Hoffman J (2015). Chapter 22‐Comparison of two groups: t‐tests and nonparametric tests. Biostatistics for Medical and Biomedical Practitioners, pp. 337-362
Hollander M, Wolfe D A & Chicken E (2013). Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley & Sons. Holt C A & Sullivan S P (2023). Permutation tests for experimental data. Experimental Economics 26(4): 775-812
Isbell D R & Jiang X (2012). Comparing two related samples. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics pp. 1-7 Jung K, Lee J, Gupta V & Cho G (2019). Comparison of bootstrap confidence interval methods for GSCA using a Monte Carlo simulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2215
Justus V L, Rodrigues V B & Sousa A R D S (2024). Bootstrap confidence intervals: A comparative simulation study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12967.
Kaplan D M & Goldman M (2018). Comparing distributions by multiple testing across quantiles or CDF values, Working Papers 1801, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
Kostanek J, Karolczak K, Kuliczkowski W & Watala C (2024). Bootstrap method as a tool for analyzing data with atypical distributions deviating from parametric assumptions: Critique and effectiveness evaluation. Data 9(8): 95
Kreutzmann A K (2018). Estimation of sample quantiles: challenges and issues in the context of income and wealth distributions. AStA Wirtschafts-und Sozialstatistisches Archiv 12(3): 245-270
Lazic S E (2024). Ditching the norm: Using alternative distributions for biological data analysis. Laboratory Animals, 58(5): 438-442
Mair P & Wilcox R (2020). Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package. Behavior Research Methods 52: 464-488
Marden J I (2004). Positions and QQ plots. Statistical Science 19(4): 606-614
Marozzi M (2021). A combined bootstrap test for the two-sample location problem. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 91(1): 180-196
McCrum-Gardner E. (2008). Which is the correct statistical test to use? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 46(1): 38-41
MacFarland T W & Yates J M (2016). Mann–Whitney U test. In Introduction to nonparametric statistics for the biological sciences using R (pp. 103-132). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Mokhtar S F, Yusof Z M & Sapiri H (2023). Confidence intervals by bootstrapping approach: a significance review. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences 19(1): 30-42
Navruz G & Ozdemir A F (2016). Comparison of two independent groups by using the lower and upper quantiles and percentile bootstrap. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology A-Applied Sciences and Engineering 17(3): 506-511
Neuhäuser M & Ruxton G D (2009). Round your numbers in rank tests: exact and asymptotic inference and ties. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64: 297-303
Nordstokke D W & Colp S M (2018). A note on the assumption of identical distributions for nonparametric tests of location. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 23(3): 1-9
Pan Y, Caudill S P, Li R & Caldwell K L (2014). Median and quantile tests under complex survey design using SAS and R. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 117(2): 292-297
Pandis N (2015). Nonparametric methods. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 148(4): 695.
Pauly M, Umlauft M & Unlu A (2018). Resampling-based inference methods for comparing two coefficients alpha. Psychometrika 83: 203 222
Pek J, Wong O & Wong A C (2018). How to address non-normality: A taxonomy of approaches, reviewed, and illustrated. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 2104
R Core Team (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Rached I & Larsson E (2019). Tail distribution and extreme quantile estimation using non-parametric approaches. High-Performance Modelling and Simulation for Big Data Applications: Selected Results of the COST Action IC1406 cHiPSet pp. 69-87
Rousselet G A, Pernet C R, Wilcox R R (2017). Beyond differences in means: robust graphical methods to compare two groups in neuroscience. European Journal of Neuroscience, 46(2): 1738-1748
Shoemaker L H (1995). Tests for differences in dispersion based on quantiles. The American Statistician 49(2): 179-182
Stein M L (2021). Parametric models for distributions when interest is in extremes with an application to daily temperature. Extremes 24(2): 293-323
Suriyakat W & Panichkitkosolkul W (2023). Nonparametric bootstrap confidence intervals for the population mean of a zero-truncated Poisson-Lindley distribution and their application. Journal of Current Science and Technology 13(3): 725-733
Troendle J F (2005). Multiple comparisons between two groups on multiple Bernoulli outcomes while accounting for covariates. Statistics in Medicine 24(23): 3581-3591
Tukey J W (1977). Modern techniques in data analysis. In Proc. of the NSF-Sponsored Regional Research Conference (Vol. 7). North Dartmouth, MA, USA: Southern Massachusetts University.
Wang Z, Peng L & Kim J K (2022). Bootstrap inference for the finite population mean under complex sampling designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 84(4): 1150-1174
Wanishsakpong W, Sodrung K & Thongteeraparp A (2023). A comparison of nonparametric statistics and bootstrap methods for testing two independent populations with unequal variance. International Journal of Analysis and Applications 21: 36-36
Wilcox R R (1995). Comparing two independent groups via multiple quantiles. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) 44(1): 91-99
Wilcox R R, Erceg-Hurn D M, Clark F & Carlson M (2012). Comparing two independent groups via the lower and upper quantiles. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 84(7): 1543-1551.
Wilcox R R & Schönbrodt F D (2014). The WRS package for robust statistics in R (version 0.24). Retrieved from http://r-forge.rproject.org/projects/wrs/ Wood M (2005). Bootstrapped confidence intervals as an approach to statistical inference. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4): 454-470
Zimmerman D W (1994). Note on the influence of distribution shape on nonparametric tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(3): 1160-1162

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Animal Science, Genetics and Biostatistics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Zeynel Cebeci
0000-0002-7641-7094
Türkiye

Melis Çelik Güney ^*
0000-0002-6825-6884
Türkiye

Uğur Serbester
0000-0003-4460-3797
Türkiye

Publication Date

January 20, 2026

Submission Date

June 25, 2025

Acceptance Date

August 22, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 32 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1727052

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA77UU32FN

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Cebeci, Z., Çelik Güney, M., & Serbester, U. (2026). Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(1), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1727052

AMA

1.Cebeci Z, Çelik Güney M, Serbester U. Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments. J Agr Sci-Tarim Bili. 2026;32(1):130-144. doi:10.15832/ankutbd.1727052

Chicago

Cebeci, Zeynel, Melis Çelik Güney, and Uğur Serbester. 2026. “Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments”. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32 (1): 130-44. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1727052.

EndNote

Cebeci Z, Çelik Güney M, Serbester U (January 1, 2026) Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32 1 130–144.

IEEE

[1]Z. Cebeci, M. Çelik Güney, and U. Serbester, “Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments”, J Agr Sci-Tarim Bili, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 130–144, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.15832/ankutbd.1727052.

ISNAD

Cebeci, Zeynel - Çelik Güney, Melis - Serbester, Uğur. “Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments”. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32/1 (January 1, 2026): 130-144. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1727052.

JAMA

1.Cebeci Z, Çelik Güney M, Serbester U. Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments. J Agr Sci-Tarim Bili. 2026;32:130–144.

MLA

Cebeci, Zeynel, et al. “Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments”. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 32, no. 1, Jan. 2026, pp. 130-44, doi:10.15832/ankutbd.1727052.

Vancouver

1.Zeynel Cebeci, Melis Çelik Güney, Uğur Serbester. Comparing Various Descriptive Statistics for Two Independent Groups in Agricultural Experiments. J Agr Sci-Tarim Bili. 2026 Jan. 1;32(1):130-44. doi:10.15832/ankutbd.1727052