The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists
Abstract
The steady upward trend in the use of model selection and Bayesian methods in ecological research has made it clear that both approaches to inference are important for modern analysis of models and data. However, in teaching Bayesian methods and in working with our research colleagues, we have noticed a general dissatisfaction with the available literature on Bayesian model selection and multimodel inference. Students and researchers new to Bayesian methods quickly find that the published advice on model selection is often preferential in its treatment of options for analysis, frequently advocating one particular method above others. The recent appearance of many articles and textbooks on Bayesian modeling has provided welcome background on relevant approaches to model selection in the Bayesian framework, but most of these are either very narrowly focused in scope or inaccessible to ecologists. Moreover, the methodological details of Bayesian model selection approaches are spread thinly throughout the literature, appearing in journals from many different fields. Our aim with this guide is to condense the large body of literature on Bayesian approaches to model selection and multimodel inference and present it specifically for quantitative ecologists as neutrally as possible. We also bring to light a few important and fundamental concepts relating directly to model selection that seem to have gone unnoticed in the ecological literature. Throughout, we provide only a minimal discussion of philosophy, preferring instead to examine the breadth of approaches as well as their practical advantages and disadvantages. This guide serves as a reference for ecologists using Bayesian methods, so that they can better understand their options and can make an informed choice that is best aligned with their goals for inference.
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
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. (1990) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10476213 · Cited by 6,606
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118 · cited 2×
“Hoeting et al. (1999) provided a good summary of methods for approximating model weights that have a formal justification.”
BackgroundMethodVariable Selection via Gibbs Sampling
George, E. I., & McCulloch, R. E. (1993) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476353 · Cited by 2,828
Bernardo, J. M., & Smith, A. F. M. (1994) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316870 · Cited by 2,178
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297 · cited 1×
“Gotelli and Ellison (2012) and Bolker (2008) provide excellent background on contemporary ecological statistics, and from a Bayesian perspective see Clark (2007), Royle and Dorazio (2008), Link and Barker (2010), and Hobbs and Hooten (in press).”
BackgroundModel 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 2×
“Furthermore, BMA performed on a set of models M yields better inference about g than any one of the models alone (Madigan and Raftery 1994), thus we have a compelling reason to use it.”
MethodPhilosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics
Gelman, A., & Shalizi, C. R. (2013) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x · Cited by 825
Prediction via Orthogonalized Model Mixing
Clyde, M., Desimone, H., & Parmigiani, G. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476989 · Cited by 145
Cited by
Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated ecosystems
Gibb, R., Redding, D. W., Chin, K. Q., Donnelly, C. A., Blackburn, T. M., Newbold, T., & Jones, K. E. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8 · Cited by 880
A practical guide to selecting models for exploration, inference, and prediction in ecology
Tredennick, A. T., Hooker, G., Ellner, S. P., & Adler, P. B. (2021) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.3336 · Cited by 474
Cross validation for model selection: A review with examples from ecology
Yates, L. A., Aandahl, Z., Richards, S. A., & Brook, B. W. (2023) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1557 · Cited by 459
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
Thorson, J. T. (2019) · Fisheries Research · doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.10.013 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Hooten, M. B., & Hobbs, N. T.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-28
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2048776980
- Cited by
- 891
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 64.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/14-0661.1
- The paper
- Hooten, M. B., & Hobbs, N. T. (2015). A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0661.1
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.