ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Occupancy versus colonization-extinction models for projecting population trends at different spatial scales.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regional and local factors interact to shape colonization and extinction dynamics of invasiveEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Occupancy versus colonization-extinction models for projecting population trends at different spatial scales.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding spatiotemporal population trends and their drivers is a key aim in population ecology. We further need to be able to predict how the dynamics and sizes of populations are affected in the long term by changing landscapes and climate. However, predictions of future population trends are sensitive to a range of modeling assumptions. Deadwood-dependent fungi are an excellent system for testing the performance of different predictive models of sessile species as these species have different rarity and spatial population dynamics, the populations are structured at different spatial scales, and they utilize distinct substrates. We tested how the projected large-scale occupancies of species with differing landscape-scale occupancies are affected over the coming century by different modeling assumptions. We compared projections based on occupancy models against colonization-extinction models, conducting the modeling at alternative spatial scales and using fine- or coarse-resolution deadwood data. We also tested effects of key explanatory variables on species occurrence and colonization-extinction dynamics. The hierarchical Bayesian models applied were fitted to an extensive repeated survey of deadwood and fungi at 174 patches. We projected higher occurrence probabilities and more positive trends using the occupancy models compared to the colonization-extinction models, with greater difference for the species with lower occupancy, colonization rate, and colonization:extinction ratio than for the species with higher estimates of these statistics. The magnitude of future increase in occupancy depended strongly on the spatial modeling scale and resource resolution. We encourage using colonization-extinction models over occupancy models, modeling the process at the finest resource-unit resolution that is utilizable by the species, and conducting projections for the same spatial scale and resource resolution at which the model fitting is conducted. Further, the models applied should include key variables driving the metapopulation dynamics, such as the availability of suitable resource units, habitat quality, and spatial connectivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.