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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Ecology (Durham) 2016-07, Vol.97 (7), p.1759-1770 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 & 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 |