Search for: All records

Abstract Matrix population models are frequently built and used by ecologists to analyse demography and elucidate the processes driving population growth or decline. Life Table Response Experiments (LTREs) are comparative analyses that decompose the realized difference or variance in population growth rate () into contributions from the differences or variances in the vital rates (i.e. the matrix elements). Since their introduction, LTREs have been based on approximations and have not included biologically relevant interaction terms.We used the functional analysis of variance framework to derive an exact LTRE method, which calculates the exact response of to the difference or variance in a given vital rate, for all interactions among vital rates—including higher‐order interactions neglected by the classical methods. We used the publicly available COMADRE and COMPADRE databases to perform a meta‐analysis comparing the results of exact and classical LTRE methods. We analysed 186 and 1487 LTREs for animal and plant matrix population models, respectively.We found that the classical methods often had small errors, but that very high errors were possible. Overall error was related to the difference or variance in the matrices being analysed, consistent with the Taylor series basis of the classical method. Neglected interaction terms accounted for most of the errors in fixed design LTRE, highlighting the importance of two‐way interaction terms. For random design LTRE, errors in the contribution terms present in both classical and exact methods were comparable to errors due to neglected interaction terms. In most examples we analysed, evaluating exact contributions up to three‐way interaction terms was sufficient for interpreting 90% or more of the difference or variance in .Relative error, previously used to evaluate the accuracy of classical LTREs, is not a reliable metric of how closely the classical and exact methods agree. Error compensation between estimated contribution terms and neglected contribution terms can lead to low relative error despite faulty biological interpretation. Trade‐offs or negative covariances among matrix elements can lead to high relative error despite accurate biological interpretation. Exact LTRE provides reliable and accurate biological interpretation, and the R packageexactLTREmakes the exact method accessible to ecologists. 

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. 

Abstract: One strand of modern coexistence theory (MCT) partitions invader growth rates (IGR) to quantify how different mechanisms contribute to species coexistence, highlighting fluctuation‐dependent mechanisms. A general conclusion from the classical analytic MCT theory is that coexistence mechanisms relying on temporal variation (such as the temporal storage effect) are generally less effective at promoting coexistence than mechanisms relying on spatial or spatiotemporal variation (primarily growth‐density covariance). However, the analytic theory assumes continuous population density, and IGRs are calculated for infinitesimally rare invaders that have infinite time to find their preferred habitat and regrow, without ever experiencing intraspecific competition. Here we ask if the disparity between spatial and temporal mechanisms persists when individuals are, instead, discrete and occupy finite amounts of space. We present a simulation‐based approach to quantifying IGRs in this situation, building on our previous approach for spatially non‐varying habitats. As expected, we found that spatial mechanisms are weakened; unexpectedly, the contribution to IGR from growth‐density covariance could even become negative, opposing coexistence. We also found shifts in which demographic parameters had the largest effect on the strength of spatial coexistence mechanisms. Our substantive conclusions are statements about one model, across parameter ranges that we subjectively considered realistic. Using the methods developed here, effects of individual discreteness should be explored theoretically across a broader range of conditions, and in models parameterized from empirical data on real communities.