Dataset Information

A comparison of random draw and locally neutral models for the avifauna of an English woodland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Explanations for patterns observed in the structure of local assemblages are frequently sought with reference to interactions between species, and between species and their local environment. However, analyses of null models, where non-interactive local communities are assembled from regional species pools, have demonstrated that much of the structure of local assemblages remains in simulated assemblages where local interactions have been excluded. Here we compare the ability of two null models to reproduce the breeding bird community of Eastern Wood, a 16-hectare woodland in England, UK. A random draw model, in which there is complete annual replacement of the community by immigrants from the regional pool, is compared to a locally neutral community model, in which there are two additional parameters describing the proportion of the community replaced annually (per capita death rate) and the proportion of individuals recruited locally rather than as immigrants from the regional pool.

Results

Both the random draw and locally neutral model are capable of reproducing with significant accuracy several features of the observed structure of the annual Eastern Wood breeding bird community, including species relative abundances, species richness and species composition. The two additional parameters present in the neutral model result in a qualitatively more realistic representation of the Eastern Wood breeding bird community, particularly of its dynamics through time. The fact that these parameters can be varied, allows for a close quantitative fit between model and observed communities to be achieved, particularly with respect to annual species richness and species accumulation through time.

Conclusion

The presence of additional free parameters does not detract from the qualitative improvement in the model and the neutral model remains a model of local community structure that is null with respect to species differences at the local scale. The ability of this locally neutral model to describe a larger number of woodland bird communities with either little variation in its parameters or with variation explained by features local to the woods themselves (such as the area and isolation of a wood) will be a key subsequent test of its relevance.

SUBMITTER: Dolman AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC441392 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of random draw and locally neutral models for the avifauna of an English woodland.

Dolman Andrew M AM Blackburn Tim M TM

BMC ecology 20040603

<h4>Background</h4>Explanations for patterns observed in the structure of local assemblages are frequently sought with reference to interactions between species, and between species and their local environment. However, analyses of null models, where non-interactive local communities are assembled from regional species pools, have demonstrated that much of the structure of local assemblages remains in simulated assemblages where local interactions have been excluded. Here we compare the ability ...[more]

PMID: 15176982

Similar Datasets

Project description:Avian cavity nesters (ACN) are viable indicators of forest structure, composition, and diversity. Utilizing these species responses in multi-disciplinary climate-avian-forest modeling can improve climate adaptive management. We propose a framework for integrating and evaluating climate-avian-forest models by linking two ACN niche models with a forest landscape model (FLM), LANDIS-II. The framework facilitates the selection of available ACN models for integration, evaluation of model transferability, and evaluation of successful integration of ACN models with a FLM. We found selecting a model for integration depended on its transferability to the study area (Northern Rockies Ecoregion of Idaho in the United States), which limited the species and model types available for transfer. However, transfer evaluation of the tested ACN models indicated a good fit for the study area. Several niche model variables (canopy cover, snag density, and forest cover type) were not directly informed by the LANDIS-II model, which required secondary modeling (Random Forest) to derive values from the FLM outputs. In instances where the Random Forest models performed with a moderate classification accuracy, the overall effect on niche predictions was negligible. Predictions based on LANDIS-II simulations performed similarly to predictions based on the niche model's original training input types. This supported the conclusion that the proposed framework is viable for informing avian niche models with FLM simulations. Even models that poorly approximate habitat suitability, due to the inherent constraints of predicting spatial niche use of irruptive species produced informative results by identifying areas of management focus. This is primarily because LANDIS-II estimates spatially explicit variables that were unavailable over large spatial extents from alternative datasets. Thus, without integration, one of the ACN niche models was not applicable to the study area. The framework will be useful for integrating avifauna niche and forest ecosystem models, which can inform management of contemporary and future landscapes under differing management and climate scenarios.

Project description:BackgroundWhen study data are clustered, standard regression analysis is considered inappropriate and analytical techniques for clustered data need to be used. For prediction research in which the interest of predictor effects is on the patient level, random effect regression models are probably preferred over standard regression analysis. It is well known that the random effect parameter estimates and the standard logistic regression parameter estimates are different. Here, we compared random effect and standard logistic regression models for their ability to provide accurate predictions.MethodsUsing an empirical study on 1642 surgical patients at risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, who were treated by one of 19 anesthesiologists (clusters), we developed prognostic models either with standard or random intercept logistic regression. External validity of these models was assessed in new patients from other anesthesiologists. We supported our results with simulation studies using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of 5%, 15%, or 30%. Standard performance measures and measures adapted for the clustered data structure were estimated.ResultsThe model developed with random effect analysis showed better discrimination than the standard approach, if the cluster effects were used for risk prediction (standard c-index of 0.69 versus 0.66). In the external validation set, both models showed similar discrimination (standard c-index 0.68 versus 0.67). The simulation study confirmed these results. For datasets with a high ICC (≥15%), model calibration was only adequate in external subjects, if the used performance measure assumed the same data structure as the model development method: standard calibration measures showed good calibration for the standard developed model, calibration measures adapting the clustered data structure showed good calibration for the prediction model with random intercept.ConclusionThe models with random intercept discriminate better than the standard model only if the cluster effect is used for predictions. The prediction model with random intercept had good calibration within clusters.

Project description:BackgroundLogistic random effects models are a popular tool to analyze multilevel also called hierarchical data with a binary or ordinal outcome. Here, we aim to compare different statistical software implementations of these models.MethodsWe used individual patient data from 8509 patients in 231 centers with moderate and severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) enrolled in eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and three observational studies. We fitted logistic random effects regression models with the 5-point Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) as outcome, both dichotomized as well as ordinal, with center and/or trial as random effects, and as covariates age, motor score, pupil reactivity or trial. We then compared the implementations of frequentist and Bayesian methods to estimate the fixed and random effects. Frequentist approaches included R (lme4), Stata (GLLAMM), SAS (GLIMMIX and NLMIXED), MLwiN ([R]IGLS) and MIXOR, Bayesian approaches included WinBUGS, MLwiN (MCMC), R package MCMCglmm and SAS experimental procedure MCMC.Three data sets (the full data set and two sub-datasets) were analysed using basically two logistic random effects models with either one random effect for the center or two random effects for center and trial. For the ordinal outcome in the full data set also a proportional odds model with a random center effect was fitted.ResultsThe packages gave similar parameter estimates for both the fixed and random effects and for the binary (and ordinal) models for the main study and when based on a relatively large number of level-1 (patient level) data compared to the number of level-2 (hospital level) data. However, when based on relatively sparse data set, i.e. when the numbers of level-1 and level-2 data units were about the same, the frequentist and Bayesian approaches showed somewhat different results. The software implementations differ considerably in flexibility, computation time, and usability. There are also differences in the availability of additional tools for model evaluation, such as diagnostic plots. The experimental SAS (version 9.2) procedure MCMC appeared to be inefficient.ConclusionsOn relatively large data sets, the different software implementations of logistic random effects regression models produced similar results. Thus, for a large data set there seems to be no explicit preference (of course if there is no preference from a philosophical point of view) for either a frequentist or Bayesian approach (if based on vague priors). The choice for a particular implementation may largely depend on the desired flexibility, and the usability of the package. For small data sets the random effects variances are difficult to estimate. In the frequentist approaches the MLE of this variance was often estimated zero with a standard error that is either zero or could not be determined, while for Bayesian methods the estimates could depend on the chosen "non-informative" prior of the variance parameter. The starting value for the variance parameter may be also critical for the convergence of the Markov chain.

Dataset Information

A comparison of random draw and locally neutral models for the avifauna of an English woodland.

Background

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A comparison of random draw and locally neutral models for the avifauna of an English woodland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets