2. In a classical experiment carried out from 1918 to 1934, apple trees of different rootstocks were compared (Andrews and Herzberg 1984, pp. 357-360). The variables analyzed were y1 = trunk girth at 4 years (mm x 100) y2 extension growth at 4 years (m) y3 = trunk girth at 15 years (mm x 100) y4 = weight of tree above ground at 15 years (1b x 1000) (a) Using the SAS output below, carry out tests of significance for the discriminant functions and find the relative importance of each as in i = 1, . .., S where ; are the eigenvalues of the matrix E-H. Do these two procedures agree to the number of important discriminant functions? The CANDISC Procedure Eigenvalues of Inv(E)*H = CanRsq/(1-CanRsq) Test of HO: The canonical correlations in the current row and all that follow are zero Adjusted Approximate Squared Canonical Canonical Standard Canonical Likelihood Approximate Correlation Correlation Error Correlation Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative Ratio F Value Num DF Den DF Pr > F 0.807623 0.770467 0.050724 0.652255 1.8757 1.0850 0.6421 0.6421 0. 15400767 4.94 20 130.3 <.0001 n w a the standardized coefficients are below. comment on contribution of variables to separation groups. pooled within-class canonical variable can1 can2 can3 can4 y1 y2 y3 y4>