Search for: All records

Abstract Integral projection models (IPMs) are widely used for studying continuously size‐structured populations. IPMs require a growth sub‐model that describes the probability of future size conditional on current size and any covariates. Most IPM studies assume that this distribution is Gaussian, despite calls for non‐Gaussian models that accommodate skewness and excess kurtosis. We provide a general workflow for accommodating non‐Gaussian growth patterns while retaining important covariates and random effects. Our approach emphasizes visual diagnostics from pilot Gaussian models and quantile‐based metrics of skewness and kurtosis that guide selection of a non‐Gaussian alternative, if necessary. Across six case studies, skewness and excess kurtosis were common features of growth data, and non‐Gaussian models consistently generated simulated data that were more consistent with real data than pilot Gaussian models. However, effects of “improved” growth modeling on IPM results were moderate to weak and differed in direction or magnitude between different outputs from the same model. Using tools not available when IPMs were first developed, it is now possible to fit non‐Gaussian models to growth data without sacrificing ecological complexity. Doing so, as guided by careful interrogation of the data, will result in models that better represent the populations for which they are intended. 

Abstract Selecting among competing statistical models is a core challenge in science. However, the many possible approaches and techniques for model selection, and the conflicting recommendations for their use, can be confusing. We contend that much confusion surrounding statistical model selection results from failing to first clearly specify the purpose of the analysis. We argue that there are three distinct goals for statistical modeling in ecology: data exploration, inference, and prediction. Once the modeling goal is clearly articulated, an appropriate model selection procedure is easier to identify. We review model selection approaches and highlight their strengths and weaknesses relative to each of the three modeling goals. We then present examples of modeling for exploration, inference, and prediction using a time series of butterfly population counts. These show how a model selection approach flows naturally from the modeling goal, leading to different models selected for different purposes, even with exactly the same data set. This review illustrates best practices for ecologists and should serve as a reminder that statistical recipes cannot substitute for critical thinking or for the use of independent data to test hypotheses and validate predictions.