↓ Skip to main content

Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
344 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
Model selection and assessment for multi-species occupancy models
Published in
Ecology, July 2016
DOI 10.1890/15-1471.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin M. Broms, Mevin B. Hooten, Ryan M. Fitzpatrick

Abstract

While multi-species occupancy models (MSOMs) are emerging as a popular method for analyzing biodiversity data, formal checking and validation approaches for this class of models have lagged behind. Concurrent with the rise in application of MSOMs among ecologists, a quiet regime shift is occurring in Bayesian statistics where predictive model comparison approaches are experiencing a resurgence. Unlike single-species occupancy models that use integrated likelihoods, MSOMs are usually couched in a Bayesian framework and contain multiple levels. Standard model checking and selection methods are often unreliable in this setting and there is only limited guidance in the ecological literature for this class of models. We examined several different contemporary Bayesian hierarchical approaches for checking and validating MSOMs and applied these methods to a freshwater aquatic study system in Colorado, USA, to better understand the diversity and distributions of plains fishes. Our findings indicated distinct differences among model selection approaches, with cross-validation techniques performing the best in terms of prediction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Latvia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 330 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 25%
Student > Master 73 21%
Researcher 69 20%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 47 14%
Unknown 32 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 170 49%
Environmental Science 100 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 1%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 1%
Mathematics 4 1%
Other 15 4%
Unknown 45 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,882,144
of 13,810,416 outputs
Outputs from Ecology
#1,973
of 5,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,790
of 266,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology
#41
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,810,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 266,024 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.