↓ Skip to main content

An Accessible Method for Implementing Hierarchical Models with Spatio-Temporal Abundance Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Accessible Method for Implementing Hierarchical Models with Spatio-Temporal Abundance Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth E. Ross, Mevin B. Hooten, David N. Koons

Abstract

A common goal in ecology and wildlife management is to determine the causes of variation in population dynamics over long periods of time and across large spatial scales. Many assumptions must nevertheless be overcome to make appropriate inference about spatio-temporal variation in population dynamics, such as autocorrelation among data points, excess zeros, and observation error in count data. To address these issues, many scientists and statisticians have recommended the use of Bayesian hierarchical models. Unfortunately, hierarchical statistical models remain somewhat difficult to use because of the necessary quantitative background needed to implement them, or because of the computational demands of using Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms to estimate parameters. Fortunately, new tools have recently been developed that make it more feasible for wildlife biologists to fit sophisticated hierarchical Bayesian models (i.e., Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation, 'INLA'). We present a case study using two important game species in North America, the lesser and greater scaup, to demonstrate how INLA can be used to estimate the parameters in a hierarchical model that decouples observation error from process variation, and accounts for unknown sources of excess zeros as well as spatial and temporal dependence in the data. Ultimately, our goal was to make unbiased inference about spatial variation in population trends over time.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Canada 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 138 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 21%
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 4%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 18 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 71 47%
Environmental Science 43 28%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Mathematics 4 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 19 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,587,648
of 25,193,883 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#147,043
of 218,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,523
of 164,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,752
of 4,766 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,193,883 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,766 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.