Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 672

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 access
Richards, Shane A.·2008·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01377.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 672

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.