↓ 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 (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 129 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 43%
Environmental Science 19 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 36 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#4,614,783
of 23,544,006 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,878
of 2,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,795
of 310,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#27
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,006 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 310,598 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.