Local Factors Determine Plant Community Structure on Closely Neighbored Islands

Despite the recent popularity of the metacommunity concept, ecologists have not evaluated the applicability of different metacommunity frameworks to insular organisms. We surveyed 50 closely spaced islands in the Thousand-Island Lake of China to examine the role of local (environmental) and regional (dispersal) factors in structuring woody plant assemblages (tree and shrub species) on these islands. By partitioning the variation in plant community structure into local and regional causes, we showed that local environmental conditions, specifically island morphometric characteristics, accounted for the majority of the variation in plant community structure among the studied islands. Spatial variables, representing the potential importance of species dispersal, explained little variation. We conclude that one metacommunity framework–species sorting–best characterizes these plant communities. This result reinforces the idea that the traditional approach of emphasizing the local perspective when studying ecological communities continues to hold its value

Model averaging in ecology: a review of Bayesian, information-theoretic and tactical approaches for predictive inference

In ecology, the true causal structure for a given problem is often not known, and several plausible models and thus model predictions exist. It has been claimed that using weighted averages of these models can reduce prediction error, as well as better reflect model selection uncertainty. These claims, however, are often demonstrated by isolated examples. Analysts must better understand under which conditions model averaging can improve predictions and their uncertainty estimates. Moreover, a large range of different model averaging methods exists, raising the question of how they differ in their behaviour and performance. Here, we review the mathematical foundations of model averaging along with the diversity of approaches available. We explain that the error in model‐averaged predictions depends on each model's predictive bias and variance, as well as the covariance in predictions between models, and uncertainty about model weights. We show that model averaging is particularly useful if the predictive error of contributing model predictions is dominated by variance, and if the covariance between models is low. For noisy data, which predominate in ecology, these conditions will often be met. Many different methods to derive averaging weights exist, from Bayesian over information‐theoretical to cross‐validation optimized and resampling approaches. A general recommendation is difficult, because the performance of methods is often context dependent. Importantly, estimating weights creates some additional uncertainty. As a result, estimated model weights may not always outperform arbitrary fixed weights, such as equal weights for all models. When averaging a set of models with many inadequate models, however, estimating model weights will typically be superior to equal weights. We also investigate the quality of the confidence intervals calculated for model‐averaged predictions, showing that they differ greatly in behaviour and seldom manage to achieve nominal coverage. Our overall recommendations stress the importance of non‐parametric methods such as cross‐validation for a reliable uncertainty quantification of model‐averaged predictions

Improving the analysis of movement data from marked individuals through explicit estimation of observer heterogeneity

Ring re-encounter data, in particular ring recoveries, have made a large contribution to our understanding of bird movements. However, almost every study based on ring re-encounter data has struggled with the bias caused by unequal observer distribution. Re-encounter probabilities are strongly heterogeneous in space and over time. If this heterogeneity can be measured or at least controlled for, the enormous number of ring re-encounter data collected can be used effectively to answer many questions. Here, we review four different approaches to account for heterogeneity in observer distribution in spatial analyses of ring re-encounter data. The first approach is to measure re-encounter probability directly. We suggest that variation in ring re-encounter probability could be estimated by combining data whose re-encounter probabilities are close to one (radio or satellite telemetry) with data whose re-encounter probabilities are low (ring re-encounter data). The second approach is to measure the spatial variation in re-encounter probabilities using environmental covariates. It should be possible to identify powerful predictors for ring re-encounter probabilities. A third approach consists of the comparison of the actual observations with all possible observations using randomization techniques. We encourage combining such randomisations with ring re-encounter models that we discuss as a fourth approach. Ring re-encounter models are based on the comparison of groups with equal re-encounter probabilities. Together these four approaches could improve our understanding of bird movements considerably. We discuss their advantages and limitations and give directions for future research.

Model averaging in ecology: a review of Bayesian, information-theoretic, and tactical approaches for predictive inference

In ecology, the true causal structure for a given problem is often not known, and several plausible models and thus model predictions exist. It has been claimed that using weighted averages of these models can reduce prediction error, as well as better reflect model selection uncertainty. These claims, however, are often demonstrated by isolated examples. Analysts must better understand under which conditions model averaging can improve predictions and their uncertainty estimates. Moreover, a large range of different model averaging methods exists, raising the question of how they differ in their behaviour and performance. Here, we review the mathematical foundations of model averaging along with the diversity of approaches available. We explain that the error in model-averaged predictions depends on each model\u27s predictive bias and variance, as well as the covariance in predictions between models, and uncertainty about model weights. We show that model averaging is particularly useful if the predictive error of contributing model predictions is dominated by variance, and if the covariance between models is low. For noisy data, which predominate in ecology, these conditions will often be met. Many different methods to derive averaging weights exist, from Bayesian over information-theoretical to cross-validation optimized and resampling approaches. A general recommendation is difficult, because the performance of methods is often context dependent. Importantly, estimating weights creates some additional uncertainty. As a result, estimated model weights may not always outperform arbitrary fixed weights, such as equal weights for all models. When averaging a set of models with many inadequate models, however, estimating model weights will typically be superior to equal weights. We also investigate the quality of the confidence intervals calculated for model-averaged predictions, showing that they differ greatly in behaviour and seldom manage to achieve nominal coverage. Our overall recommendations stress the importance of non-parametric methods such as cross-validation for a reliable uncertainty quantification of model-averaged predictions