Model selection for the North American Breeding Bird Survey.

Bayesian analysis North American Breeding Bird Survey Watanabe/Akaike information criterion bayesian predictive information criterion hierarchical models leave-one-out cross-validation model selection

Journal

Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America
ISSN: 1051-0761
Titre abrégé: Ecol Appl
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9889808

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2020
Historique:
received: 24 01 2020
accepted: 24 02 2020
pubmed: 24 4 2020
medline: 7 1 2021
entrez: 24 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) provides data that can be used in complex, multiscale analyses of population change, while controlling for scale-specific nuisance factors. Many alternative models can be fit to the data, but most model selection procedures are not appropriate for hierarchical models. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), in which relative model fit is assessed by omitting an observation and assessing the prediction of a model fit using the remainder of the data, provides a reasonable approach for assessing models, but is time consuming and not feasible to apply for all observations in large data sets. We report the first large-scale formal model selection for BBS data, applying LOOCV to stratified random samples of observations from BBS data. Our results are for 548 species of North American birds, comparing the fit of four alternative models that differ in year effect structures and in descriptions of extra-Poisson overdispersion. We use a hierarchical model among species to evaluate posterior probabilities that models are best for individual species. Models in which differences in year effects are conditionally independent (D models) were generally favored over models in which year effects are modeled by a slope parameter and a random year effect (S models), and models in which extra-Poisson overdispersion effects are independent and t-distributed (H models) tended to be favored over models where overdispersion was independent and normally distributed. Our conclusions lead us to recommend a change from the conventional S model to D and H models for the vast majority of species (544/548). Comparison of estimated population trends based on the favored model relative to the S model currently used for BBS summaries indicates no consistent differences in estimated trends. Of the 18 species that showed large differences in estimated trends between models, estimated trends from the default S model were more extreme, reflecting the influence of the slope parameter in that model for species that are undergoing large population changes. WAIC, a computationally simpler alternative to LOOCV, does not appear to be a reliable alternative to LOOCV.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32324930
doi: 10.1002/eap.2137
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e02137

Informations de copyright

© 2020 by the Ecological Society of America.

Références

Barker, R. J., M. R. Schofield, W. A. Link, and J. R. Sauer. 2018. On the reliability of N-mixture models for count data. Biometrics 74:369-377.
Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
Chatfield, C. 1995. Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (London), Series A 158:419-466.
Gelman, A., J. Hwang, and A. Vehtari. 2014. Understanding predictive information criteria for Bayesian models. Statistics and Computing 24:997-1016.
Hooten, M. B., and N. T. Hobbs. 2015. A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. Ecological Monographs 85:3-28.
Juárez, M. A., and M. F. Steel. 2010. Model-based clustering of non-Gaussian panel data based on skew-t distributions. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 28:52-66.
Kendall, W. L., B. G. Peterjohn, and J. R. Sauer. 1996. First-time observer effects in the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Auk 113:823-829.
Link, W. A., and R. J. Barker. 2006. Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference. Ecology 87:2626-2635.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 1998. Estimating relative abundance from count data. Austrian Journal of Statistics 27:83-97.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 2016a. Modeling participation duration, with application to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 45:6311-6320.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 2016b. Bayesian cross-validation for model evaluation and selection, with application to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Ecology 97:1746-1758.
Link, W. A., J. R. Sauer, and D. K. Niven. 2017. Model selection for the North American Breeding Bird Survey: a comparison of methods. Condor 119:546-556.
Link, W. A., M. R. Schofield, R. J. Barker, and J. R. Sauer. 2018. On the robustness of N-mixture models. Ecology 99:1547-1551.
Louis, T. A. 1984. Estimating a population of parameter values using Bayes and empirical Bayes methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79:393-398.
Morris, C. N. 1983. Parametric empirical Bayes inference: theory and applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78:47-55.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2016. The state of North America's birds 2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Pardieck, K. L., D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., M. Lutmerding, V. Aponte, and M-A.R. Hudson. 2019. North American Breeding Bird Survey dataset 1966-2018. Version 2018.0. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9HE8XYJ
Plummer, M. 2003. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Pages 1-10 in K. Hornik, F. Leisch, and A. Zeileis, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003) March 20-22, Vienna, Austria.
Rosenberg, K. V., et al. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee 119 pp.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966-2013. Version 01.30.2015. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
Sauer, J. R., and W. A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the North American Breeding Bird Survey using hierarchical models. Auk 128:87-98.
Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, and D. J. Ziolkowski Jr. 2013. The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2011: summary analysis and species accounts. North American Fauna 79:1-32.
Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, D. J. Ziolkowski, K. L. Pardieck, and D. J. Twedt. 2019. Consistency counts: modeling the effects of a change in protocol on Breeding Bird Survey counts. Condor 121:duz009.
Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W. A. Link. 2017a. Expanding the North American Breeding Bird Survey analysis to include additional species and regions. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8:154-172.
Sauer, J. R., K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., A. C. Smith, M-A.R. Hudson, V. Rodriguez, H. Berlanga, D. K. Niven, and W. A. Link. 2017b. The first 50 years of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Condor 119:576-593.
Su, Y.-S., and M. Yajima. 2015. R2jags: Using R to run ‘JAGS’. Version 0.5-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package/R2jags

Auteurs

William A Link (WA)

U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, 20708, USA.

John R Sauer (JR)

U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, 20708, USA.

Daniel K Niven (DK)

U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, 20708, USA.

Articles similaires

Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
Humans Emergency Service, Hospital Child Child, Preschool Infant
Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell

Classifications MeSH