↓ Skip to main content

Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
721 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1470 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations
Published in
Ecology Letters, October 2005
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00826.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tara G. Martin, Brendan A. Wintle, Jonathan R. Rhodes, Petra M. Kuhnert, Scott A. Field, Samantha J. Low‐Choy, Andrew J. Tyre, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

A common feature of ecological data sets is their tendency to contain many zero values. Statistical inference based on such data are likely to be inefficient or wrong unless careful thought is given to how these zeros arose and how best to model them. In this paper, we propose a framework for understanding how zero-inflated data sets originate and deciding how best to model them. We define and classify the different kinds of zeros that occur in ecological data and describe how they arise: either from 'true zero' or 'false zero' observations. After reviewing recent developments in modelling zero-inflated data sets, we use practical examples to demonstrate how failing to account for the source of zero inflation can reduce our ability to detect relationships in ecological data and at worst lead to incorrect inference. The adoption of methods that explicitly model the sources of zero observations will sharpen insights and improve the robustness of ecological analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,470 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 35 2%
Brazil 14 <1%
United Kingdom 13 <1%
Canada 10 <1%
Australia 7 <1%
Argentina 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
Germany 5 <1%
Chile 4 <1%
Other 48 3%
Unknown 1323 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 446 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 305 21%
Student > Master 205 14%
Student > Bachelor 76 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 69 5%
Other 247 17%
Unknown 122 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 779 53%
Environmental Science 342 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 32 2%
Mathematics 32 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 1%
Other 80 5%
Unknown 188 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,875,249
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,245
of 3,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,212
of 71,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 71,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.