Cited by 1,150Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution

Open access
Harrison, Xavier A.·2014·PeerJ

Abstract

Overdispersion is common in models of count data in ecology and evolutionary biology, and can occur due to missing covariates, non-independent (aggregated) data, or an excess frequency of zeroes (zero-inflation). Accounting for overdispersion in such models is vital, as failing to do so can lead to biased parameter estimates, and false conclusions regarding hypotheses of interest. Observation-level random effects (OLRE), where each data point receives a unique level of a random effect that models the extra-Poisson variation present in the data, are commonly employed to cope with overdispersion in count data. However studies investigating the efficacy of observation-level random effects as a means to deal with overdispersion are scarce. Here I use simulations to show that in cases where overdispersion is caused by random extra-Poisson noise, or aggregation in the count data, observation-level random effects yield more accurate parameter estimates compared to when overdispersion is simply ignored. Conversely, OLRE fail to reduce bias in zero-inflated data, and in some cases increase bias at high levels of overdispersion. There was a positive relationship between the magnitude of overdispersion and the degree of bias in parameter estimates. Critically, the simulations reveal that failing to account for overdispersion in mixed models can erroneously inflate measures of explained variance (r (2)), which may lead to researchers overestimating the predictive power of variables of interest. This work suggests use of observation-level random effects provides a simple and robust means to account for overdispersion in count data, but also that their ability to minimise bias is not uniform across all types of overdispersion and must be applied judiciously.

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.616

Cites

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?

  • Failure to account for overdispersion in glmms with Poisson errors can lead to anticonservative p values and a high risk of false-positive claims.

    “Our examples include failure to account for overdispersion in glmms with Poisson errors (Forstmeier et al., 2017; Harrison, 2014; Ives, 2015)”

    From Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils (2021) · cites this paper as Harrison, 2014

  • High rates of false-positive conclusions can arise when overdispersion in count data is not controlled appropriately.

    “High rates of false-positive conclusions can arise for instance when overdispersion in count data is not controlled appropriately”

    From Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils (2021) · cites this paper as Harrison, 2014

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bolker BM Brooks ME Clark CJ Geange SW Poulsen JR Stevens MHH White JSS Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2009 24 127 135 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 19185386 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Crawley MJ The R book 2007 United Kingdom John Wiley & Sons Ltd
  3. Elston DA Moss R Bouliner T Arrowsmith C Lambin X Analysis of aggregation, a worked example: number of ticks on red grouse Parasitology 2001 122 563 569 10.1017/S0031182001007740 11393830 · DOI
  4. Fournier DA Skaug HJ Ancheta J Ianelli J Magnusson A Maunder M Nielsen A Sibert J AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterised complex non-linear models Optimisation Methods & Software 2012 27 233 249 10.1080/10556788.2011.597854 · DOI
  5. Hilbe JM Negative binomial regression 2nd edition 2011 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
  6. Kery M Introduction to WinBUGS for ecologists 2010 Burlington, MA Academic Press
  7. Martin TG Wintle BA Rhodes JR Kuhnert PM Field SA Low-Choy SJ Tyre AJ Possingham HP Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations Ecology Letters 2005 8 1235 1246 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00826.x 21352447 · DOI
  8. Nakagawa S Schielzeth H A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2013 4 133 142 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. O’Hara RB Kotze DJ Do not log-transform count data Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2010 1 118 122 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00021.x · DOI
  10. Owen JP Nelson AC Clayton DH Ecological immunology of bird-ectoparasite systems Trends in Parasitology 2010 26 530 539 10.1016/j.pt.2010.06.005 20599426 · DOI
  11. Richards SA Dealing with overdispersed count data in applied ecology Journal of Applied Ecology 2008 45 218 227 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01377.x · DOI
  12. Venables WN Ripley BD Modern applied statistics with S Fourth edition 2002 New York Springer 0-387-95457-0
  13. Ver Hoef JM Boveng PL Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 2007 88 2766 2772 10.1890/07-0043.1 18051645 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Zuur AF Ieno EN Walker NJ Saveliev AA Smith GM Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R 2009 New York Springer

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harrison, X. A.
Affiliations
Zoological Society of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Harrison, Xavier A.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2014-10-09
Volume
2
Pages
e616
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163861300
Cited by
1,150
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 142 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 101 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 31
FWCI
64.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PeerJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
overdispersion, count data, excess zeros, aggregated data, parameter bias, explained variance, mixed models, simulation study

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