Choosing priors in Bayesian ecological models by simulating from the prior predictive distribution
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Bayesian data analysis is increasingly used in ecology, but prior specification remains focused on choosing non‐informative priors (e.g., flat or vague priors). One barrier to choosing more informative priors is that priors must be specified on model parameters (e.g., intercepts, slopes, and sigmas), but prior knowledge often exists on the level of the response variable. This is particularly true for common models in ecology, like generalized linear mixed models that have a link function and potentially dozens of parameters, each of which needs a prior distribution. We suggest that this difficulty can be overcome by simulating from the prior predictive distribution and visualizing the results on the scale of the response variable. In doing so, some common choices for non‐informative priors on parameters can easily be seen to produce biologically impossible values of response variables. Such implications of prior choices are difficult to foresee without visualization. We demonstrate a workflow for prior selection using simulation and visualization with two ecological examples (predator–prey body sizes and spider responses to food competition). This approach is not new, but its adoption by ecologists will help to better incorporate prior information in ecological models, thereby maximizing one of the benefits of Bayesian data analysis.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
We mitigate conclusion-validity threats by following established principles: domain expertise pooling [45], maximum entropy criterion [46], and uninformative priors [36].
“We mitigate them by following established principles, i.e., domain expertise pooling [45], maximum entropy criterion [46], and uninformative priors [36].”
From Same Scrutiny, More Time: Eye Tracking Insights into Reviewing LLM-Labelled Code (2026) · cites this paper as [36]
The citation [36] is attached to “uninformative priors.” In the Introduction, the paper argues against treating non-informative priors as a sound default; the Discussion says that evaluating priors against domain knowledge is better than seeking the least informative prior. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
<b>brms</b> : An <i>R</i> Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using <i>Stan</i>
Bürkner, P.-C. (2017) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01 · Cited by 9,476 · see citing works
Gelman, A. (2006) · Bayesian Analysis · doi:10.1214/06-ba117a · Cited by 4,050 · see citing works
Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan
McElreath, R. (2020) · doi:10.1201/9780429029608 · Cited by 1,959 · see citing works
Toward a principled Bayesian workflow in cognitive science.
Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M., & Vasishth, S. (2021) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000275 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Morris, W. K., Vesk, P. A., McCarthy, M. A., Bunyavejchewin, S., & Baker, P. J. (2015) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.1346 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Bedrick, E. J., R. Christensen, and W. Johnson. 1996. A new perspective on priors for generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Associ- ation 91:1450-1460.
- Edwards, W., H. Lindman, and L. J. Savage. 1963. Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review 70:193.
- Ellison, A. M. 2004. Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecology Letters 7:509-520.
- Gabry, J., D. Simpson, A. Vehtari, M. Betancourt, and A. Gelman. 2019. Visualization in Bayesian work- flow. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: series A (Statistics in Society) 182:389-402.
- Gelman, A., J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. B. Rubin. 2013. Bayesian data anal- ysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
- Gelman, A., J. Hill, and M. Yajima. 2012. Why we (usu- ally) don't have to worry about multiple compar- isons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 5:189-211.
- Gelman, A., A. Vehtari, D. Simpson, C. C. Margossian, B. Carpenter, Y. Yao, L. Kennedy, J. Gabry, P.-C. B ürkner, and M. Modrák. 2020. Bayesian work- flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01808. · arXiv
- Hobbs, N. T., and M. B. Hooten. 2015. Bayesian mod- els: a statistical primer for ecologists. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
- Kadane, J. B., J. M. Dickey, R. L. Winkler, W. S. Smith, and S. C. Peters. 1980. Interactive elicitation of opinion for a normal linear model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75:845-854.
- Korner-Nievergelt, F., T. Roth, S. Von Felten, J. Guélat, B. Almasi, and P. Korner-Nievergelt. 2015. Baye- sian Data analysis in ecology using linear models with R, BUGS, and Stan. Academic Press, Amster- dam, the Netherlands.
- Lindley, D. V. 1961. The use of prior probability distri- butions in statistical inference and decision. Pages 453-468 in J. Neyman, editor. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Volume 1. Contributions to the Theory of Statistics. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.
- McCarthy, M. A., and P. Masters. 2005. Profiting from prior information in Bayesian analyses of ecologi- cal data. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:1012-1019.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Same Scrutiny, More Time: Eye Tracking Insights into Reviewing LLM-Labelled Code
Khojah, R., Gomes de Oliveira Neto, F., Mohamad, M., Frattini, J., & Leitner, P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3832783.3834423
- Authors
- Wesner, J. S., & Pomeranz, J. P. F.
- Affiliations
- University of South Dakota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wesner, Jeff S.
- Venue
- Ecosphere
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3201638556
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 10.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Ecosphere (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1837233)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
- Keywords
- prior specification, prior predictive distribution, informative priors, non-informative priors, generalized linear mixed models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review