Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 984

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems

Open access
Grace, James B., Anderson, T. Michael, Olff, Han, Scheiner, Samuel M.·2010·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

The use of structural equation modeling (SEM) is often motivated by its utility for investigating complex networks of relationships, but also because of its promise as a means of representing theoretical concepts using latent variables. In this paper, we discuss characteristics of ecological theory and some of the challenges for proper specification of theoretical ideas in structural equation models (SE models). In our presentation, we describe some of the requirements for classical latent variable models in which observed variables (indicators) are interpreted as the effects of underlying causes. We also describe alternative model specifications in which indicators are interpreted as having causal influences on the theoretical concepts. We suggest that this latter nonclassical specification (which involves another variable type—the composite) will often be appropriate for ecological studies because of the multifaceted nature of our theoretical concepts. In this paper, we employ the use of meta‐models to aid the translation of theory into SE models and also to facilitate our ability to relate results back to our theories. We demonstrate our approach by showing how a synthetic theory of grassland biodiversity can be evaluated using SEM and data from a coastal grassland. In this example, the theory focuses on the responses of species richness to abiotic stress and disturbance, both directly and through intervening effects on community biomass. Models examined include both those based on classical forms (where each concept is represented using a single latent variable) and also ones in which the concepts are recognized to be multifaceted and modeled as such. To address the challenge of matching SE models with the conceptual level of our theory, two approaches are illustrated, compositing and aggregation. Both approaches are shown to have merits, with the former being preferable for cases where the multiple facets of a concept have widely differing effects in the system and the latter being preferable where facets act together consistently when influencing other parts of the system. Because ecological theory characteristically deals with concepts that are multifaceted, we expect the methods presented in this paper will be useful for ecologists wishing to use SEM.

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 · 10.1890/09-0464.1

Cites

55 of 55 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 55 references

Cited by

See all 984

Metadata

Authors
Grace, J. B., Anderson, T. M., Olff, H., & Scheiner, S. M.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
67-87
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2164145351
Cited by
984
References
55
FWCI
18.87
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: On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/09-0464.1
The paper
Grace, J. B., Anderson, T. M., Olff, H., & Scheiner, S. M. (2010). On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0464.1

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.