Loading…

Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models

While multi-species occupancy models (MSOMs) are emerging as a popular method for analyzing biodiversity data, formal checking and validation approaches for this class of models have lagged behind. Concurrent with the rise in application of MSOMs among ecologists, a quiet regime shift is occurring i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology (Durham) 2016-07, Vol.97 (7), p.1759-1770
Main Authors: Broms, Kristin M., Hooten, Mevin B., Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743
container_end_page 1770
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1759
container_title Ecology (Durham)
container_volume 97
creator Broms, Kristin M.
Hooten, Mevin B.
Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.
description While multi-species occupancy models (MSOMs) are emerging as a popular method for analyzing biodiversity data, formal checking and validation approaches for this class of models have lagged behind. Concurrent with the rise in application of MSOMs among ecologists, a quiet regime shift is occurring in Bayesian statistics where predictive model comparison approaches are experiencing a resurgence. Unlike single-species occupancy models that use integrated likelihoods, MSOMs are usually couched in a Bayesian framework and contain multiple levels. Standard model checking and selection methods are often unreliable in this setting and there is only limited guidance in the ecological literature for this class of models. We examined several different contemporary Bayesian hierarchical approaches for checking and validating MSOMs and applied these methods to a freshwater aquatic study system in Colorado, USA, to better understand the diversity and distributions of plains fishes. Our findings indicated distinct differences among model selection approaches, with cross-validation techniques performing the best in terms of prediction.
doi_str_mv 10.1890/15-1471.1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1841794592</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>43967146</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>43967146</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkT1r3EAQhpcQE5-dFPkBCQI3dqHLjrSfpTn8BTZunCLVslrNgg5Je9ZImPv3ljjHhSGQaaZ5nneYGca-A1-DsfwXyByEhjV8Yiuwpc0taP6ZrTiHIrdKmmN2QrTlc4EwX9hxoY2cGbFilw-pxjYjbDGMTeoz39eZJ0KiDvsxi2nIuqkdm5x2GBqkLIUw7Xwf9lm3qPSVHUXfEn5766fs9_XV0-Y2v3-8udtc3udBcC1yqKVCXyGvbFWjBu1V5NIrG6PRtalMjBLLItpCBY8CdIEzMrvKWghalKfs_JC7G9LzhDS6rqGAbet7TBM5MLNkhbTFf6DcKMlFCTN69gHdpmno50UWqhBSl-Uy--JAhSERDRjdbmg6P-wdcLe8wIF0ywvckvjzLXGqOqzfyb83n4H1AXhpWtz_O8ldbf6A4Ivw4yBsaUzDuyBKqzQIVb4CW0yWrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1802457334</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models</title><source>Wiley</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Broms, Kristin M. ; Hooten, Mevin B. ; Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Broms, Kristin M. ; Hooten, Mevin B. ; Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</creatorcontrib><description>While multi-species occupancy models (MSOMs) are emerging as a popular method for analyzing biodiversity data, formal checking and validation approaches for this class of models have lagged behind. Concurrent with the rise in application of MSOMs among ecologists, a quiet regime shift is occurring in Bayesian statistics where predictive model comparison approaches are experiencing a resurgence. Unlike single-species occupancy models that use integrated likelihoods, MSOMs are usually couched in a Bayesian framework and contain multiple levels. Standard model checking and selection methods are often unreliable in this setting and there is only limited guidance in the ecological literature for this class of models. We examined several different contemporary Bayesian hierarchical approaches for checking and validating MSOMs and applied these methods to a freshwater aquatic study system in Colorado, USA, to better understand the diversity and distributions of plains fishes. Our findings indicated distinct differences among model selection approaches, with cross-validation techniques performing the best in terms of prediction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/15-1471.1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27859174</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECGYAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA</publisher><subject>Bayesian analysis ; Bayesian hierarchical models ; Biodiversity ; cross‐validation ; Data analysis ; Ecologists ; Mathematical models ; plains fish ; South Platte River Basin ; species distribution maps</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2016-07, Vol.97 (7), p.1759-1770</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2016 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2016 by the Ecological Society of America.</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Jul 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43967146$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43967146$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27859174$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Broms, Kristin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hooten, Mevin B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</creatorcontrib><title>Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><description>While multi-species occupancy models (MSOMs) are emerging as a popular method for analyzing biodiversity data, formal checking and validation approaches for this class of models have lagged behind. Concurrent with the rise in application of MSOMs among ecologists, a quiet regime shift is occurring in Bayesian statistics where predictive model comparison approaches are experiencing a resurgence. Unlike single-species occupancy models that use integrated likelihoods, MSOMs are usually couched in a Bayesian framework and contain multiple levels. Standard model checking and selection methods are often unreliable in this setting and there is only limited guidance in the ecological literature for this class of models. We examined several different contemporary Bayesian hierarchical approaches for checking and validating MSOMs and applied these methods to a freshwater aquatic study system in Colorado, USA, to better understand the diversity and distributions of plains fishes. Our findings indicated distinct differences among model selection approaches, with cross-validation techniques performing the best in terms of prediction.</description><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Bayesian hierarchical models</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>cross‐validation</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Ecologists</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>plains fish</subject><subject>South Platte River Basin</subject><subject>species distribution maps</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkT1r3EAQhpcQE5-dFPkBCQI3dqHLjrSfpTn8BTZunCLVslrNgg5Je9ZImPv3ljjHhSGQaaZ5nneYGca-A1-DsfwXyByEhjV8Yiuwpc0taP6ZrTiHIrdKmmN2QrTlc4EwX9hxoY2cGbFilw-pxjYjbDGMTeoz39eZJ0KiDvsxi2nIuqkdm5x2GBqkLIUw7Xwf9lm3qPSVHUXfEn5766fs9_XV0-Y2v3-8udtc3udBcC1yqKVCXyGvbFWjBu1V5NIrG6PRtalMjBLLItpCBY8CdIEzMrvKWghalKfs_JC7G9LzhDS6rqGAbet7TBM5MLNkhbTFf6DcKMlFCTN69gHdpmno50UWqhBSl-Uy--JAhSERDRjdbmg6P-wdcLe8wIF0ywvckvjzLXGqOqzfyb83n4H1AXhpWtz_O8ldbf6A4Ivw4yBsaUzDuyBKqzQIVb4CW0yWrw</recordid><startdate>20160701</startdate><enddate>20160701</enddate><creator>Broms, Kristin M.</creator><creator>Hooten, Mevin B.</creator><creator>Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</creator><general>ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA</general><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160701</creationdate><title>Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models</title><author>Broms, Kristin M. ; Hooten, Mevin B. ; Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Bayesian hierarchical models</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>cross‐validation</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Ecologists</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>plains fish</topic><topic>South Platte River Basin</topic><topic>species distribution maps</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Broms, Kristin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hooten, Mevin B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Broms, Kristin M.</au><au>Hooten, Mevin B.</au><au>Fitzpatrick, Ryan M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><date>2016-07-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1759</spage><epage>1770</epage><pages>1759-1770</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><coden>ECGYAQ</coden><abstract>While multi-species occupancy models (MSOMs) are emerging as a popular method for analyzing biodiversity data, formal checking and validation approaches for this class of models have lagged behind. Concurrent with the rise in application of MSOMs among ecologists, a quiet regime shift is occurring in Bayesian statistics where predictive model comparison approaches are experiencing a resurgence. Unlike single-species occupancy models that use integrated likelihoods, MSOMs are usually couched in a Bayesian framework and contain multiple levels. Standard model checking and selection methods are often unreliable in this setting and there is only limited guidance in the ecological literature for this class of models. We examined several different contemporary Bayesian hierarchical approaches for checking and validating MSOMs and applied these methods to a freshwater aquatic study system in Colorado, USA, to better understand the diversity and distributions of plains fishes. Our findings indicated distinct differences among model selection approaches, with cross-validation techniques performing the best in terms of prediction.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA</pub><pmid>27859174</pmid><doi>10.1890/15-1471.1</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-9658
ispartof Ecology (Durham), 2016-07, Vol.97 (7), p.1759-1770
issn 0012-9658
1939-9170
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1841794592
source Wiley; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Bayesian analysis
Bayesian hierarchical models
Biodiversity
cross‐validation
Data analysis
Ecologists
Mathematical models
plains fish
South Platte River Basin
species distribution maps
title Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T18%3A54%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Model%20selection%20and%20assessment%20for%20multi-species%20occupancy%20models&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Broms,%20Kristin%20M.&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1759&rft.epage=1770&rft.pages=1759-1770&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft.coden=ECGYAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/15-1471.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E43967146%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4074-1d56eabe0b9bde717a6f05a69ff87d8b8ff5e32f926cae4172e7a6c406991c743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1802457334&rft_id=info:pmid/27859174&rft_jstor_id=43967146&rfr_iscdi=true