The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data
Open accessAbstract
Determining the importance of independent variables is of practical relevance to ecologists and managers concerned with allocating limited resources to the management of natural systems. Although techniques that identify explanatory variables having the largest influence on the response variable are needed to design management actions effectively, the use of various indices to evaluate variable importance is poorly understood. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compared six different indices commonly used to evaluate variable importance; zero‐order correlations, partial correlations, semipartial correlations, standardized regression coefficients, Akaike weights, and independent effects. We simulated four scenarios to evaluate the indices under progressively more complex circumstances that included correlation between explanatory variables, as well as a spurious variable that was correlated with other explanatory variables, but not with the dependent variable. No index performed perfectly under all circumstances, but partial correlations and Akaike weights performed poorly in all cases. Zero‐order correlations was the only measure that detected the presence of a spurious variable, whereas only independent effects assigned overlap areas correctly once the spurious variable was removed. We therefore recommend using zero‐order correlations to eliminate predictor variables with correlations near zero, followed by the use of independent effects to assign overlap areas and rank variable importance.
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
Multiple Regression in Practice
Berry, W., & Feldman, S. (1985) · doi:10.4135/9781412985208 · Cited by 1,227
Mac Nally, R. (2000) · Biodiversity & Conservation · doi:10.1023/a:1008985925162 · Cited by 938
Cited by
Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J. R. G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J., et al. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x · Cited by 9,998
A comparative study of machine learning classifiers for modeling travel mode choice
Hagenauer, J., & Helbich, M. (2017) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.057 · Cited by 424
Metadata
- Authors
- Murray, K., & Conner, M. M.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 348-355
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2166615416
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.21
- 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: Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/07-1929.1
- The paper
- Murray, K., & Conner, M. M. (2009). Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1929.1
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.