4.7 Review

Accounting for uncertainty in ecological analysis: the strengths and limitations of hierarchical statistical modeling

期刊

ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 553-570

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/07-0744.1

关键词

Bayesian modeling; data model; design; empirical Bayes; harbor seals; MCMC; prior; process model; spatial process; spatiotemporal process

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0112050]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [823293] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyses of ecological data should account for the uncertainty in the process(es) that generated the data. However, accounting for these uncertainties is a difficult task, since ecology is known for its complexity. Measurement and/or process errors are often the only sources of uncertainty modeled when addressing complex ecological problems, yet analyses should also account for uncertainty in sampling design, in model specification, in parameters governing the specified model, and in initial and boundary conditions. Only then can we be con. dent in the scientific inferences and forecasts made from an analysis. Probability and statistics provide a framework that accounts for multiple sources of uncertainty. Given the complexities of ecological studies, the hierarchical statistical model is an invaluable tool. This approach is not new in ecology, and there are many examples ( both Bayesian and non-Bayesian) in the literature illustrating the benefits of this approach. In this article, we provide a baseline for concepts, notation, and methods, from which discussion on hierarchical statistical modeling in ecology can proceed. We have also planted some seeds for discussion and tried to show where the practical difficulties lie. Our thesis is that hierarchical statistical modeling is a powerful way of approaching ecological analysis in the presence of inevitable but quanti. able uncertainties, even if practical issues sometimes require pragmatic compromises.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据