The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dealing with overdispersed count data in applied ecology
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The ability to identify key ecological processes is important when solving applied problems. Increasingly, ecologists are adopting Akaike's information criterion (AIC) as a metric to help them assess and select among multiple process‐based ecological models. Surprisingly, however, it is still unclear how best to incorporate AIC into the selection process in order to address the trade‐off between maximizing the probability of retaining the most parsimonious model while minimizing the number of models retained. Ecological count data are often observed to be overdispersed with respect to best‐fitting models. Overdispersion is problematic when performing an AIC analysis, as it can result in selection of overly complex models which can lead to poor ecological inference. This paper describes and illustrates two approaches that deal effectively with overdispersion. The first approach involves modelling the causes of overdispersion implicitly using compound probability distributions. The second approach ignores the causes of overdispersion and uses quasi‐AIC (QAIC) as a metric for model parsimony. Simulations and a novel method that identifies the most parsimonious model are used to demonstrate the utility of the two overdispersion approaches within the context of two ecological examples. The first example addresses binomial data obtained from a study of fish survival (as related to habitat structure) and the second example addresses Poisson data obtained from a study of flower visitation by nectarivores. Applying either overdispersion approach reduces the chance of selecting overly complex models, and both approaches result in very similar ecological inference. In addition, inference can be made more reliable by incorporating model nesting into the selection process (i.e. identifying which models are special cases of others), as it reduces the number of models selected without significantly reducing the probability of retaining the most parsimonious models. Synthesis and applications. When data are overdispersed, inference can be improved by either modelling the causes of overdispersion or applying QAIC as a metric for model parsimony. Inference can also be improved by adopting a model filtering procedure based on how models are nested. The general simulation approach presented in this paper for identifying the most parsimonious model, as defined by information theory, should help to improve our understanding of the reliability of model selection when using AIC, and help the development of better selection rules.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118 · cited 1×
“A similar approach has been used to investigate model selection in a Bayesian framework (Hoeting et al. 1999), but surprisingly it has not been applied previously to AIC.”
MethodModel Selection and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Graphical Models Using Occam's Window
Madigan, D., & Raftery, A. E. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1994.10476894 · Cited by 1,205 · cited 1×
“Ignoring the more complex nested models if they provide minimal increased fit is not a new idea and is adopted commonly when selecting models in a Bayesian framework (Madigan & Raftery 1994).”
Method
Cited by
Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists.
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2010) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00141.x · Cited by 2,584
A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology
Harrison, X. A., Donaldson, L., Correa-Cano, M. E., Evans, J., Fisher, D. N., Goodwin, C. E. D., Robinson, B. S., Hodgson, D. J., & Inger, R. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4794 · Cited by 2,094
Harrison, X. A. (2014) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.616 · Cited by 1,150
Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species' numbers are rising
Inger, R., Gregory, R., Duffy, J. P., Stott, I., Voříšek, P., & Gaston, K. J. (2015) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12387 · Cited by 489
Functional connectivity of lynx at their southern range periphery in Ontario, Canada
Walpole, A. A., Bowman, J., Murray, D. L., & Wilson, P. J. (2012) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9728-1 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Richards, S. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10-18
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 218-227
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2109609169
- Cited by
- 672
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dealing with overdispersed count data in applied ecology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01377.x
- The paper
- Richards, S. A. (2008). Dealing with overdispersed count data in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01377.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.