The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TESTING ECOLOGICAL THEORY USING THE INFORMATION-THEORETIC APPROACH: EXAMPLES AND CAUTIONARY RESULTS
Open accessAbstract
Ecologists are increasingly applying model selection to their data analyses, primarily to compare regression models. Model selection can also be used to compare mechanistic models derived from ecological theory, thereby providing a formal framework for testing the theory. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is the most commonly adopted criterion used to compare models; however, its performance in general is not very well known. The best model according to AIC has the smallest expected Kullback-Leibler (K-L) distance, which is an information-theoretic measure of the difference between a model and the truth. I review the theory behind AIC and demonstrate how it can be used to test ecological theory by considering two example studies of foraging, motivated by simple foraging theory. I present plausible truths for the two studies, and models that can be fit to the foraging data. K-L distances are calculated for simulated studies, which provide an appropriate test of AIC. Results support the use of a commonly adopted rule of thumb for selecting models based on AIC differences. However, AICc, a corrected version of AIC commonly used to reduce model selection bias, showed no clear improvement, and model averaging, a technique to reduce model prediction bias, gave mixed results.
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
Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., & White, G. C. (1998) · Journal of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1080/02664769823250 · Cited by 311
Cited by
Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance
Garibaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen, M. A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., Carvalheiro, L. G., Harder, L. D., Afik, O., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1230200 · Cited by 2,668
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
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Leadley, P. W., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257484 · Cited by 1,227
Basin-wide variations in Amazon forest structure and function are mediated by both soils and climate
Quesada, C. A., Phillips, O. L., Schwarz, M., Czimczik, C. I., Baker, T. R., Patiño, S., Fyllas, N. M., Hodnett, M. G., Herrera, R., Almeida, S., et al. (2012) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-9-2203-2012 · Cited by 834
Metadata
- Authors
- Richards, S. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2805-2814
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1999635025
- Cited by
- 644
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: TESTING ECOLOGICAL THEORY USING THE INFORMATION-THEORETIC APPROACH: EXAMPLES AND CAUTIONARY RESULTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/05-0074
- The paper
- Richards, S. A. (2005). TESTING ECOLOGICAL THEORY USING THE INFORMATION-THEORETIC APPROACH: EXAMPLES AND CAUTIONARY RESULTS. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0074
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.