Cited by 2,094Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceStatistical Methods and Applications

A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology

Open access
Harrison, Xavier A., Donaldson, Lynda, Correa-Cano, Maria Eugenia, Evans, Julian, Fisher, David N., Goodwin, Cecily E.D., Robinson, Beth S., Hodgson, David J. +1 more·2018·PeerJ

Abstract

The use of linear mixed effects models (LMMs) is increasingly common in the analysis of biological data. Whilst LMMs offer a flexible approach to modelling a broad range of data types, ecological data are often complex and require complex model structures, and the fitting and interpretation of such models is not always straightforward. The ability to achieve robust biological inference requires that practitioners know how and when to apply these tools. Here, we provide a general overview of current methods for the application of LMMs to biological data, and highlight the typical pitfalls that can be encountered in the statistical modelling process. We tackle several issues regarding methods of model selection, with particular reference to the use of information theory and multi-model inference in ecology. We offer practical solutions and direct the reader to key references that provide further technical detail for those seeking a deeper understanding. This overview should serve as a widely accessible code of best practice for applying LMMs to complex biological problems and model structures, and in doing so improve the robustness of conclusions drawn from studies investigating ecological and evolutionary questions.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.4794

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent advances make it possible to fit generalized linear mixed models with a variety of error distributions or to use randomization techniques such as bootstrapping.

    “Recent advances in statistical modeling appear to have solved this problem, because it is now possible to fit generalized linear mixed models “glmm” with a variety of error distributions (e.g., binomial, Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson, negative binomial; Harrison et al., 2018; O'Hara, 2009) or to use a range of randomization techniques such as bootstrapping (Good, 2005)”

    From Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils (2021) · cites this paper as Harrison et al., 2018

  • Controlling for overdispersion in counts through a glmm with an observation-level random effect fixed the problem of inflated type I error rates for distributions D2 and D7.

    “Controlling for overdispersion in counts through the use of a glmm with an observation-level random effect (Harrison et al., 2018) fixed the problem of inflated type I error rates for distributions D2 and D7 (Fig. 3, indicated in red)”

    From Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils (2021) · cites this paper as Harrison et al., 2018

  • The use of a linear mixed model with different levels of correlations was necessary because data were unbalanced; this allowed all data to be used, and including participant as a random effect ensured each participant had their own baseline level, and the estimated change from baseline to visit 5 can be interpreted as the mean change from this level.

    “Furthermore, as data were unbalanced, the use of a linear mixed model with different levels of correlations was necessary.42 This allowed all data to be used, and by including participant as a random effect, it ensured that each participant had their own baseline level, and the estimated change from baseline to visit 5 can be interpreted as the mean change from this level.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Cox DR Snell EJ The Analysis of Binary Data 1989 Second Edition London Chapman and Hall
  2. Crawley M The R Book 2013 Second Edition Chichester Wiley
  3. Noble DWA Nakagawa S Planned missing data design: stronger inferences increased research efficiency and improved animal welfare in ecology and evolution bioRxiv 2017 247064 10.1101/247064 · DOI
  4. Peters RH A Critique for Ecology 1991 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
  5. Southwood TRE Henderson PA Ecological Methods 2000 Oxford John Wiley & Sons

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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.
Affiliations
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Harrison, Xavier A.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2018-05-23
Volume
6
Pages
e4794
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783564415
Cited by
2,094
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 227 · 2025: 228 · 2024: 271 · 2023: 246 · 2022: 327 · 2021: 383 · 2020: 261 · 2019: 116 · 2018: 32 · 2014: 1
FWCI
164.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PeerJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Institute of Zoology Research Fellowship
  • NERC studentship (NE/H02249X/1, NE/L501669/1)
  • University of Exeter and the Animal and Plant Health as part of ‘Wildlife Research Co-Operative’
  • CONACYT (The Mexican National Council for Science and Technology)
  • SEP (The Mexican Ministry of Education)
  • Forestry Commission
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture, Soil, Plant Science
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
linear mixed models, multi-model inference, model selection, information theory, ecological data analysis, statistical pitfalls

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