
 
 
Research Article Volume 3 Issue 1
     
 
Poisson area-biased lindley distribution and its applications on biological data
 Shakila Bashir,
   
    
 
   
    
    
  
    
    
   
      
      
        
        Regret for the inconvenience: we are taking measures to prevent fraudulent form submissions by extractors and page crawlers. Please type the correct Captcha word to see email ID.
        
        
 
 
 
          
     
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
       
     
   
 
    
   Mujahid Rasul  
  
Department of Statistics, Forman Christian College, Pakistan
Correspondence: Shakila Bashir, Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics, Forman Christian College (A Chartered University) Ferozepur Road Lahore (54600), Pakistan, Tel 92 (42) 9923 1581
Received: December 07, 2015 | Published: January 13, 2016
Citation: Bashir S, Rasul M. Poisson area-biased lindley distribution and its applications on biological data. Biom Biostat Int J. 2016;3(1):27-35.  DOI: 10.15406/bbij.2016.03.00058
 Download PDF
        
       
 
 
 
 
  
Abstract
  The  purpose of this paper is to introduce a discrete distribution named  Poisson-area-biased Lindley distribution and its applications on biological  data. Poisson area-biased Lindley distribution is introduced with some of its basic  properties including moments, coefficient of skewness and kurtosis are  discussed. The method of moments and maximum likelihood estimation of the  parameters of Poisson area-biased Lindley distribution are investigated. It is  found that the parameter estimated by method of moments is positively biased,  consistent and asymptotically normal. Application of the model to some biological  data sets is compared with Poisson distribution. 
Keywords: PABLD, PD, PLD, area-biased, MOM, MLE; factorial moments
 
  
Introduction
  Lindley1 introduced  a single parameter distribution named as Lindley distribution with probability  distribution function (pdf) 
  
 
 (1.1)
 
The pdf  (1.1) is the mixture of exponential 
and gamma 
distributions. The cumulative distribution function  (cdf) of the Lindley distribution is 
 (1.2)
The first  two moments of the Lindley distribution are 
 
  Sankaran2 introduced  the Lindley mixture of Poisson distribution named Poisson-Lindley distribution with  the following pdf
  
  
  
    
 (1.3)
  The pdf  (1.3) is applied to count data and arises from Poisson distribution when its  parameter 
follows a Lindley distribution. Ghitany & Al-Mutairi3 discussed various  properties of the Lindley distribution. Ghitany & Al-Mutairi3 introduced size-biased Poisson Lindley distribution with  applications. They considered the size biased form of the Poisson-Lindley  distribution. Ghitany & Al-Mutairi4  discussed estimation methods for the discrete Poisson-Lindley distribution. Srivastava & Adhikari5 introduced a size-biased  Poisson-Lindley distribution which is obtained by considering the size-biased  form of the Poisson distribution with Lindley distribution without its  size-biased form. Adhikari & Srivastava6  proposed a Poisson size-biased Lindley distribution which is obtained by  computing Poisson distribution without its size-biased form with size-biased  Lindley distribution. Shanker & Fesshaye7  discussed Poisson-Lindley distribution with several of its properties including  factorial moments and parameter estimation. They applied the Poisson-Lindley  distribution on ecology and genetics data sets and showed that it can be an  important tool for modeling biological science data. 
  Rao8  introduced the distributions that are used in situations when the recorded  observations do not have an equal probability of selection and do not have the  original distribution. The distributions used to handle such situations are  called weighted distributions. Suppose that the original distribution comes  from a distribution with pdf 
 and the  observations is recorded to a probability re-weighted by a weight function 
then the weighted distribution is defined as 
    
 (1.4)
  The  weighted distribution with 
 is called  size-biased/length-biased distributions and 
is called area-biased distribution. Patil & Ord9 discussed size-biased sampling and  related form-invariant weighted distributions. Patil  & Rao10 discussed some models leading to weighted distributions  and showed applications of weighted distributions in many real sampling  problems. Mir & Ahmad11 introduced  size-biased form of some discrete distributions with their applications. 
In this paper we consider the Poisson area-biased  Lindley distribution (PABLD) which is obtained by considering Poisson  distribution without its area-biased form with area-biased Lindley distribution  (ABLD). 
 
Poisson area-biased lindley distribution
  The  Poisson area-biased Lindley distribution (PABLD) arises from the Poisson  distribution with pdf 
  
  
  
    
 (2.1)
    when its  parameter 
follows the area-biased Lindley distribution (ABLD) in  (2.1) with pdf 
  
 (2.3)
    So
    
    
    
    
  
 
 
 
 
    After  simplifying it the pdf of PABLD is obtained 
    
    
    
  
 (2.4)
Properties of the poisson-area-biased-lindley  distribution
    The  factorial moments of the PABLD in (2.1)
    
    
    
    
      
      
 (2.5)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  For 
in (2.5), the first four factorial moments of the  PABLD are 
    
, 
, 
, 
 (2.6) 
Since the  first four raw moments of the PABLD are
    
, 
 (2.7)
 
 
 
 
    
, 
 (2.8)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The mean  moments of PABLD are 
  
  
  
  
    
 (2.9) 
    
 (2.10) 
    
 (2.11)
  The  coefficient of skewness and kurtosis of the PABLD are 
  
  
  
    
  (2.12)
 
 
 
    
 (2.13)
  For the  PABLD, from (2.12) and (2.13) it can be seen that 
 as 
, the model is negatively skewed and leptokurtic. 
Some more  properties of the PABLD are 
    
    
 (2.15)
  The  dispersion of the PABLD is defined to be
  
  
  
    From  equation (2.14) and Table 1, it can be observed  that the PABLD is over-dispersed but as 
then 
and the PABLD is equi-dispersed. Therefore for large 
the PABLD is equi-dispersed. 
 
    
        
        θ  | 
      
  | 
        
        θ  | 
      
  | 
    
    
      0.5  | 
      σ2 — 50.20408  | 
      19  | 
      σ2 — 0.012792  | 
    
    
      1  | 
      σ2 — 11.4375  | 
      20  | 
      σ2 — 0.011371  | 
    
    
      2  | 
      σ2 — 2.46  | 
      21  | 
      σ2 — 0.010169  | 
    
    
      3  | 
      σ2 — 0.972222  | 
      22  | 
      σ2 — 0.009144  | 
    
    
      4  | 
      σ2 — 0.497449  | 
      23  | 
      σ2 — 0.008263  | 
    
    
      5  | 
      σ2 — 0.294375  | 
      24  | 
      σ2 — 0.007502  | 
    
    
      6  | 
      σ2 — 0.191358  | 
      25  | 
      σ2 — 0.006839  | 
    
    
      7  | 
      σ2 — 0.132857  | 
      26  | 
      σ2 — 0.006258  | 
    
    
      8  | 
      σ2 — 0.096849  | 
      27  | 
      σ2 — 0.005748  | 
    
    
      9  | 
      σ2 — 0.073302  | 
      28  | 
      σ2 — 0.005296  | 
    
    
      10  | 
      σ2 — 0.05716  | 
      29  | 
      σ2 — 0.004894  | 
    
    
      11  | 
      σ2 — 0.045665  | 
      30  | 
      σ2 — 0.004536  | 
    
    
      12  | 
      σ2 — 0.037222  | 
      31  | 
      σ2 — 0.004215  | 
    
    
      13  | 
      σ2 — 0.030857  | 
      32  | 
      σ2 — 0.003927  | 
    
    
      14  | 
      σ2 — 0.025952  | 
      50  | 
      σ2 — 0.00147  | 
    
    
      15  | 
      σ2 — 0.022099  | 
      100  | 
      σ2 — 0.000335  | 
    
    
      16  | 
      σ2 — 0.019023  | 
      500  | 
      σ2 — 1.23E-05  | 
    
    
      17  | 
      σ2 — 0.016531  | 
      1000  | 
      σ2 — 3.04E-06  | 
    
    
      18  | 
      σ2 — 0.014487  | 
      ∞   | 
      σ2    | 
    
  
  Table 1 The  dispersion of PABLD for different values of θ
 
 
 
Method of moments
  If 
 be the random  sample from PABLD with pdf (2.4), the method of moments (MOM) estimate 
 of the parameter 
 is given by 
    
 (3.1) 
Theorem 1: The MOM estimator 
of 
is positively  biased. 
    Proof: Let 
, where 
    So, 
    
    
    
  
 (3.2) 
    Then 
 is strictly  convex. By using the Jensen’s inequality we have 
  
    Since 
, therefore 
 
Theorem 2: The MOM estimator 
of 
 is consistent  and asymptotically normal:
    
    Where 
    
    
    
    
 (3.3)
  Proof: -
  
  
  
  
    Consistency:  Since 
 then 
 And 
 is a continuous  function at 
, then 
 i-e. 
    Asymptotic  normality: as 
 then by using  the central limit theorem we have 
  
  
 is a differentiable function and 
 then by using  the delta-method we have 
  
    Finally  we have 
 and 
  
 (3.4) 
    The theorem  2 follow the asymptotic 
 confidence  interval for 
 is
  
 (3.5)
 
Maximum likelihood estimation
  Let 
 be the random  sample on size n from PABLD with pdf (2.4), the maximum likelihood estimate  (MLE) 
 of the parameter 
 is the solution  of the non-linear equation:
    
 (4.1)
 
Applications
  In this  section the PABLD is applied to some biological data sets and compared with PD. 
  
    - Guire, et al.12  gave data on European corn borers per plant with 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and counts  83, 36, 14, 2, and 1. 
 
  Form  Table 2, it can be seen that the PABLD gives  much closer fit than the PD and PLD to the data set of number of bores per  plant . Thus PABLD provides a better alternative to PD and PLD for modeling  count data sets. 
    - Beall13 gave the  distribution of Pyrausta nublilalis in 1937, no of insects 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5  with counts 33, 12, 6, 3, 1 and 1. 
 
  
  Form  Table 3, it can be seen that the PABLD gives better  fit than the PD to the data set of number of insects. Thus PABLD provides a  better alternative to PD for modeling count data sets. 
    - Juday14 and Thomas 15 gave data on macroscopic fresh-water fauna  in dredge samples from the bottom of Weber Lake. 
 
 
  Form Table 4 it can be seen that the PABLD gives better fit  than PD and PLD to the animal distribution of microcalanus nauplii. Thus PABLD  provides a better alternative to PD and PLD for modeling count data sets.
    - Archibald16 gave data on plant populations. The  distribution of representing salicornia stricta.
 
  Form  Table 5, it can be seen that the PABLD gives  better fit than the PD and PLD. Thus PABLD provides a better alternative to PD  and PLD for modeling count data sets.
    - Archibald16-18  gave data on plant populations. The distribution of representing Plantago  maritime. 
 
  
    
      Number of Bores Per Plant X  | 
      Observed Frequency (Oi)  | 
      Expected Frequency (Ei)  | 
    
    
      Poisson Distribution  | 
      Poisson-Lindley Distribution  | 
      Poisson- Area-Biased Lindley Distribution  | 
    
    
      0  | 
      83  | 
      78.9  | 
      87.2  | 
      82.4  | 
    
    
      1  | 
      36  | 
      42.9  | 
      31.8  | 
      38.1  | 
    
    
      2  | 
      14  | 
      11.7  | 
      11.2  | 
      11.7  | 
    
    
      3  | 
      2  | 
      2.01  | 
      3.8  | 
      2  | 
    
    
      4  | 
      1  | 
      0.4  | 
      2  | 
      0.67  | 
    
    
      Total  | 
      136  | 
      136  | 
      136  | 
      135.87  | 
    
    
      Estimation of Parameters  | 
       | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
    
    
      
  | 
       | 
      1.885  | 
      0.757  | 
      0.312  | 
    
    
      d.f  | 
       | 
      1  | 
      1  | 
      1  | 
    
    
      p-value  | 
       | 
      0.1698  | 
      0.3843  | 
      0.576455  | 
    
  
  Table 2 Chi-square  goodness of fit test for PD, PLD and PABLD to European corn-borer data. 
 
 
 
    
      Number of Insects x  | 
      Observed Frequency (Oi)  | 
      Expected Frequency (Ei)  | 
    
    
      Poisson Distribution  | 
      Poisson Lindley Distribution  | 
      Poisson Area-Biased Lindley    Distribution  | 
    
    
      0  | 
      33  | 
      26.45  | 
      31.48  | 
      33.18  | 
    
    
      1  | 
      12  | 
      19.84  | 
      14.16  | 
      15.98  | 
    
    
      2  | 
      6  | 
      7.44  | 
      6.09  | 
      5.09  | 
    
    
      3  | 
      3  | 
      1.86  | 
      2.5  | 
      1.34  | 
    
    
      4  | 
      1  | 
      0.35  | 
      1.04  | 
      0.32  | 
    
    
      5  | 
      1  | 
      0.05  | 
      0.42  | 
      0.07  | 
    
    
      Total  | 
      56  | 
      55.99  | 
      55.73  | 
      55.98  | 
    
    
      Estimation of Parameters  | 
       | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
    
    
      
  | 
       | 
      4.89  | 
      0.484  | 
      3.56  | 
    
    
      d.f  | 
       | 
      1  | 
      1  | 
      1  | 
    
    
      p-value  | 
       | 
      0.026977  | 
      0.00001  | 
      0.059131  | 
    
  
  Table 3 Chi-square  goodness of fit test for PD, PLD and PABLD to distribution of Pyrausta  nublilalis in 1937
 
 
 
    
      Individuals Per Unit  | 
      Microcalanus  | 
    
    
      Observed Frequency (Oi)  | 
      Expected Frequency (Ei)  | 
    
    
      Poisson Distribution  | 
      Poisson Lindley Distribution  | 
      Poisson Area-Biased Lindley    Distribution  | 
    
    
      0  | 
      0  | 
      0.01  | 
      7.156  | 
      1.294  | 
    
    
      1  | 
      2  | 
      0.098  | 
      8.743  | 
      3.402  | 
    
    
      2  | 
      4  | 
      0.468  | 
      9.632  | 
      5.76  | 
    
    
      3  | 
      3  | 
      1.498  | 
      10.009  | 
      7.928  | 
    
    
      4  | 
      5  | 
      3.595  | 
      10.014  | 
      9.643  | 
    
    
      5  | 
      8  | 
      6.903  | 
      9.757  | 
      10.791  | 
    
    
      6  | 
      16  | 
      11.045  | 
      9.324  | 
      11.37  | 
    
    
      7  | 
      13  | 
      15.147  | 
      8.777  | 
      11.446  | 
    
    
      8  | 
      12  | 
      18.177  | 
      8.164  | 
      11.116  | 
    
    
      9  | 
      13  | 
      19.388  | 
      7.521  | 
      10.487  | 
    
    
      10  | 
      15  | 
      18.613  | 
      6.873  | 
      9.66  | 
    
    
      11  | 
      15  | 
      16.244  | 
      6.239  | 
      8.721  | 
    
    
      12  | 
      9  | 
      12.995  | 
      5.631  | 
      7.739  | 
    
    
      13  | 
      9  | 
      9.596  | 
      5.057  | 
      6.767  | 
    
    
      14  | 
      7  | 
      6.58  | 
      4.522  | 
      5.842  | 
    
    
      15  | 
      4  | 
      4.211  | 
      4.028  | 
      4.986  | 
    
    
      16  | 
      4  | 
      2.527  | 
      3.575  | 
      4.213  | 
    
    
      17  | 
      6  | 
      1.427  | 
      3.164  | 
      3.528  | 
    
    
      18  | 
      2  | 
      0.761  | 
      2.793  | 
      2.931  | 
    
    
      19  | 
      0  | 
      0.385  | 
      2.459  | 
      2.417  | 
    
    
      20  | 
      2  | 
      0.185  | 
      2.16  | 
      1.981  | 
    
    
      21  | 
      1  | 
      0.084  | 
      1.894  | 
      1.613  | 
    
    
      22  | 
      0  | 
      0.037  | 
      1.658  | 
      1.306  | 
    
    
      Total  | 
      150  | 
      149.97  | 
      149.7  | 
      150  | 
    
    
      Estimation of Parameters  | 
       | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
    
    
      
  | 
       | 
      30.39206  | 
      62.992  | 
      20.02153  | 
    
    
      d.f  | 
       | 
      10  | 
      13  | 
      12  | 
    
    
      p-value  | 
       | 
      0.000739  | 
      0.00001  | 
      0.06669  | 
    
  
  Table 4 Chi-square goodness of fit test for PD, PLD and  PABLD to animal distribution of microcalanus nauplii 
 
 
 
    
      Plants Per Quadrant  | 
      Salicornia  | 
    
    
      Observed Frequency  | 
      Expected Frequency (Ei)  | 
    
    
      (Oi)  | 
      Poisson Distribution  | 
      Poisson Lindley Distribution  | 
      Poisson Area-Biased Lindley Distribution  | 
    
    
      0  | 
      4  | 
      0.127  | 
      7.874  | 
      2.277  | 
    
    
      1  | 
      3  | 
      0.843  | 
      8.939  | 
      5.267  | 
    
    
      2  | 
      8  | 
      2.804  | 
      9.199  | 
      7.861  | 
    
    
      3  | 
      13  | 
      6.216  | 
      8.947  | 
      9.553  | 
    
    
      4  | 
      11  | 
      10.333  | 
      8.389  | 
      10.265  | 
    
    
      5  | 
      9  | 
      13.743  | 
      7.665  | 
      10.156  | 
    
    
      6  | 
      8  | 
      15.232  | 
      6.871  | 
      9.465  | 
    
    
      7  | 
      10  | 
      14.471  | 
      6.069  | 
      8.43  | 
    
    
      8  | 
      3  | 
      12.029  | 
      5.299  | 
      7.245  | 
    
    
      9  | 
      3  | 
      8.888  | 
      4.582  | 
      6.05  | 
    
    
      10  | 
      8  | 
      5.91  | 
      3.931  | 
      4.934  | 
    
    
      11  | 
      3  | 
      3.573  | 
      3.35  | 
      3.943  | 
    
    
      12  | 
      4  | 
      1.98  | 
      2.839  | 
      3.099  | 
    
    
      13  | 
      4  | 
      1.013  | 
      2.394  | 
      2.399  | 
    
    
      14  | 
      0  | 
      0.481  | 
      2.01  | 
      1.834  | 
    
    
      15  | 
      3  | 
      0.213  | 
      1.681  | 
      1.387  | 
    
    
      16  | 
      0  | 
      0.089  | 
      1.402  | 
      1.038  | 
    
    
      17  | 
      0  | 
      0.035  | 
      1.165  | 
      0.77  | 
    
    
      18  | 
      1  | 
      0.013  | 
      0.966  | 
      0.566  | 
    
    
      19  | 
      0  | 
      0.004  | 
      0.799  | 
      0.414  | 
    
    
      20  | 
      3  | 
      0.001  | 
      0.659  | 
      0.3  | 
    
    
      Total  | 
      98  | 
      97.99  | 
      98  | 
      97.25275  | 
    
    
      Estimation of  Parameters  | 
       | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
    
    
      
  | 
       | 
      65.55225  | 
      13.01986  | 
      7.381047  | 
    
    
      d.f  | 
       | 
      7  | 
      8  | 
      8  | 
    
    
      p-value  | 
       | 
      0.00001  | 
      0.111198  | 
      0.496138  | 
    
  
  Table 5 Chi-square goodness of fit test for PD, PLD and  PABLD to distribution of quadrant, representing salicornia stricta 
 
 
 
  From Table 6 it is concluded that the PABLD gives better  fit than the PD and almost equally good fit as PLD distribution to the  distribution of Plantago maritime. Therefore the PABLD is better alternative to  PD and PLD to model discrete data sets. 
    
      Plants per Quadrant  | 
      Plantago  | 
    
    
      Observed Frequency  | 
      Expected Frequency (Ei)  | 
    
    
      Poisson Distribution  | 
      Poisson Lindley Distribution  | 
      Poisson Area-Biased Lindley    Distribution  | 
    
    
      0  | 
      12  | 
      0.6409  | 
      11.471  | 
      4.273  | 
    
    
      1  | 
      8  | 
      3.2367  | 
      12.166  | 
      8.868  | 
    
    
      2  | 
      9  | 
      8.1727  | 
      11.749  | 
      11.897  | 
    
    
      3  | 
      13  | 
      13.7574  | 
      10.746  | 
      13.009  | 
    
    
      4  | 
      6  | 
      17.3687  | 
      9.484  | 
      12.59  | 
    
    
      5  | 
      8  | 
      17.5424  | 
      8.163  | 
      11.223  | 
    
    
      6  | 
      11  | 
      14.7648  | 
      6.895  | 
      9.428  | 
    
    
      7  | 
      7  | 
      10.652  | 
      5.741  | 
      7.571  | 
    
    
      8  | 
      8  | 
      6.7239  | 
      4.725  | 
      5.868  | 
    
    
      9  | 
      7  | 
      3.7729  | 
      3.853  | 
      4.42  | 
    
    
      10  | 
      3  | 
      1.9053  | 
      3.117  | 
      3.251  | 
    
    
      11  | 
      4  | 
      0.8747  | 
      2.505  | 
      2.344  | 
    
    
      12  | 
      1  | 
      0.3681  | 
      2.002  | 
      1.662  | 
    
    
      13  | 
      1  | 
      0.143  | 
      1.592  | 
      1.161  | 
    
    
      14  | 
      0  | 
      0.0516  | 
      1.261  | 
      0.801  | 
    
    
      15  | 
      0  | 
      0.0174  | 
      0.995  | 
      0.547  | 
    
    
      16  | 
      1  | 
      0.0055  | 
      0.782  | 
      0.369  | 
    
    
      17  | 
      0  | 
      0.0016  | 
      0.613  | 
      0.247  | 
    
    
      18  | 
      0  | 
      0.0005  | 
      0.48  | 
      0.164  | 
    
    
      19  | 
      1  | 
      0.0001  | 
      0.374  | 
      0.108  | 
    
    
      20  | 
      0  | 
      0.00003  | 
      0.291  | 
      0.071  | 
    
    
      Total  | 
      100  | 
      99.999  | 
      99.89  | 
      99.8709  | 
    
    
      Estimation of Parameters  | 
       | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
      
  | 
    
    
      
  | 
       | 
      55.48343  | 
      7.084  | 
      10.2781  | 
    
    
      d.f  | 
       | 
      6  | 
      7  | 
      7  | 
    
    
      p-value  | 
       | 
      0.00001  | 
      0.420187  | 
      0.173359  | 
    
  
  Table 6 Chi-square  goodness of fit test for PD, PLD and PABLD to distribution of quadrant,  representing Plantago maritima 
 
 
 
  Note: The highlighted expected frequencies from Table 2-6 are the pooled frequencies that are less  than 5, so the degrees of freedom are calculated according to them.
    
  From  Table 2-7, it is observed that the PABLD gives  better fit than PD and PLD to the some biological count data sets. PD is a  discrete distribution with parameter 
. Lindley  distribution is a continuous life time distribution and PLD is the mixture of  Poisson and Lindley distributions with parameter 
. The  proposed model named PABLD is obtained by the mixture of the Poisson  distribution and the area biased form of the Lindley distribution. The area  biased distribution is a type of the weighted distribution with weight 
, due to  mixture of PD and LD with this weight, the proposed model is showing  applications better than PD and PLD to biological data sets. Mostly the  applications of the weighted distributions to the data relating biology can be  found in Patil & Rao [10].
f.	Interval Estimation: By using equation (3.5) the parameter 
 of PABLD  is estimated by the interval estimation for the Biological data sets. The  estimated interval for 
 of PABLD  by the interval estimation is closer to the estimated value by MOM. 
    
    Table  | 
    Data Sets  | 
    95 % C. I  | 
  
  
    II  | 
    Number of bores per plant  | 
    (5.989827, 6.249026)  | 
  
  
    III  | 
    Number of insects  | 
    (5.562813, 6.155574)  | 
  
  
    IV  | 
    Microcalanus  | 
    (0.39898, 0.40902)  | 
  
  
    V  | 
    Salicornia  | 
    (0.568854, 0.591146)  | 
  
  
    VI  | 
    Plantago  | 
    (0.738042, 0.766708)  | 
  
  Table 7 The  asymptotic 95% confidence  intervals (C.I) for θ of PABLD 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion
  The Poisson area-biased Lindley  distribution (PABLD) is discrete distribution that is obtained by mixture of  the Poisson distribution and area-biased Lindley distribution. Some important  properties of the PABLD are derived. From Figure 1  it can be seen that the PABLD is positively skewed moreover it can be seen that  as 
,
 and the PABLD  is negatively skewed and leptokurtic. Furthermore it is found that the PABLD is  over-dispersed but as 
the PABLD is equi-dispersed. The parameter of the  PABLD is estimated by the method of moments (MOM) and it is proved that the 
 of 
 is positively  biased, consistent and asymptotically normal. In section 4, the proposed model  PABLD is applied to some biological data sets and compared with PD and PLD. It  is observed that the PABLD gives better approach to the given data sets.  Therefore it is concluded that PABLD is a better alternative to PD and PLD and  it has useful applications in real life biological data sets. The asymptotic 
 confidence  interval (C.I) for 
of PABLD is also found on these data sets and it is  observed that the estimated interval for 
of PABLD by the interval estimation is closer to the  estimated value obtained by MOM.
Figure 1 Plots of  the pdf of PABLD for θ = 0.5, θ = 1, θ = 2, θ = 8.
 
 
 
Acknowledgments
 Conflicts of interest
  Author declares that there are no conflicts of  interest.
 
 
 
References
  
    - Lindley  DV. Fiducial distributions and Bayes’ theorem. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series. 1958;20(1):102–107.
 
- Sankaran M. The  discrete Poisson-Lindley distribution. Biometrics.  1970;26(1):145–149.
 
- Ghitany ME, Al-Mutairi DK. Size-biased  Poisson-Lindley distribution and its application. International Journal of Statistics LXVI N. 2008;3:299–311. 
 
- Ghitany ME,  Al-Mutairi DK. Estimation methods for the discrete Poisson-Lindley distribution. Journal Statistical Computation and Simulation. 2009;79(1):1–9.
 
- Srivastava RS,  Adhikari TR. A size-biased Poisson-Lindley distribution. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications.  2013;4(1):1–6.
 
- Srivastava RS,  Adhikari TR. Poisson-size-biased Lindley distribution. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2014;4(1):1–6.
 
- Shanker R, Fesshaye H. Biometrics and  Biostatistics International Journal.  2015;2(4):1–5. 
 
- Rao CR. On discrete distributions  arising out of ascertainment. In: Patil GP, editors; Classical and Contagious  Discrete Distributions, Pergamon. Press  and Statistical Publishing Society, Calcutta, India. 1965;320–332. 
 
- Patil GP, Ord JK.  On size-biased sampling and related form- invariant weighted distributions. Sankhya. 1976;38(1):48–61.
 
- Patil GP, Rao CR.  Weighted distributions and size-biased sampling with applications to wildlife  populations and human families. Biometrics.  1978;34:179–189.
 
- Mir KA, Ahmad M.  Size-biased distributions and their applications. Pak J Statistics. 2009;25(3):283–294.
 
- Mc Guire JU,  Brindley TA, Bancroft TA. The distribution of European corn-borer larvae  pyrausta in field corn. Biometrics.  1957;13(1):65–78.
 
- Beall G. The fit  and significance of contagious distributions when applied to observations on  larval insects. Ecology. 1940;21(4):460–474.
 
- Juday C. Data on the macroscopic  fresh-water fauna in dredge samples from the bottom of Weber Lake. 1942. 
 
- Thomas M. A generalization of Poisson’s  binomial limit for use in ecology. Biometrika.  1949;36(2):18–25.
 
- Archibald EEA. Plant populations. I. A  new application of Neyman’s contagious distribution. Ann Bot. 1948;12:221–235. 
 
- Bliss CI, Fisher  RA. Fitting the negative binomial distribution to Biological data. Biometrics. 1953;9(2):176–200.
 
- Ghitany ME, Atieh  B, Nadarajah S. Lindley distribution and its applications. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. 2008;78(4):493–506.
 
  
 
 
 
  
  ©2016 Bashir, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, 
 which 
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.