↓ Skip to main content

When mechanism matters: Bayesian forecasting using models of ecological diffusion

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
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
When mechanism matters: Bayesian forecasting using models of ecological diffusion
Published in
Ecology Letters, March 2017
DOI 10.1111/ele.12763
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trevor J. Hefley, Mevin B. Hooten, Robin E. Russell, Daniel P. Walsh, James A. Powell

Abstract

Ecological diffusion is a theory that can be used to understand and forecast spatio-temporal processes such as dispersal, invasion, and the spread of disease. Hierarchical Bayesian modelling provides a framework to make statistical inference and probabilistic forecasts, using mechanistic ecological models. To illustrate, we show how hierarchical Bayesian models of ecological diffusion can be implemented for large data sets that are distributed densely across space and time. The hierarchical Bayesian approach is used to understand and forecast the growth and geographic spread in the prevalence of chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). We compare statistical inference and forecasts from our hierarchical Bayesian model to phenomenological regression-based methods that are commonly used to analyse spatial occurrence data. The mechanistic statistical model based on ecological diffusion led to important ecological insights, obviated a commonly ignored type of collinearity, and was the most accurate method for forecasting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 88 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 24%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 5 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 53%
Environmental Science 17 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 12 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,496,039
of 15,943,149 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,317
of 2,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,630
of 268,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#31
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,943,149 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 268,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.