Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32583507›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2021

Ecological forecasts reveal limitations of common model selection methods: predicting changes in beaver colony densities.

Sean M Johnson-Bice, Jake M Ferguson, John D Erb, Thomas D Gable, Steve K Windels

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Advancing estuarine ecological forecasts: seasonal hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2021
    Article
  3. Ecological forecasts reveal limitations of common model selection methods: predicting changes in beaver colony densities.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sean M Johnson-BiceDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, 50 Sifton Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7538-131X
Jake M FergusonDepartment of Biology, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa, 2538 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96822, USA.
John D ErbForest Wildlife Populations and Research Group, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1201 E. highway 2, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, 55744, USA.
Thomas D GableDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, 2003 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0917-8951
Steve K WindelsNatural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, 5013 Miller Trunk Highway, Duluth, Minnesota, 55812, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, there have been numerous calls to make ecology a more predictive science through direct empirical assessments of ecological models and predictions. While the widespread use of model selection using information criteria has pushed ecology toward placing a higher emphasis on prediction, few attempts have been made to validate the ability of information criteria to correctly identify the most parsimonious model with the greatest predictive accuracy. Here, we used an ecological forecasting framework to test the ability of information criteria to accurately predict the relative contribution of density dependence and density-independent factors (forage availability, harvest, weather, wolf [Canis lupus] density) on inter-annual fluctuations in beaver (Castor canadensis) colony densities. We modeled changes in colony densities using a discrete-time Gompertz model, and assessed the performance of four models using information criteria values: density-independent models with (1) and without (2) environmental covariates; and density-dependent models with (3) and without (4) environmental covariates. We then evaluated the forecasting accuracy of each model by withholding the final one-third of observations from each population and compared observed vs. predicted densities. Information criteria and our forecasting accuracy metrics both provided strong evidence of compensatory density dependence in the annual dynamics of beaver colony densities. However, despite strong within-sample performance by the most complex model (density-dependent with covariates) as determined using information criteria, hindcasts of colony densities revealed that the much simpler density-dependent model without covariates performed nearly as well predicting out-of-sample colony densities. The hindcast results indicated that the complex model over-fit our data, suggesting that parameters identified by information criteria as important predictor variables are only marginally valuable for predicting landscape-scale beaver colony dynamics. Our study demonstrates the importance of evaluating ecological models and predictions with long-term data and revealed how a known limitation of information criteria (over-fitting of complex models) can affect our interpretation of ecological dynamics. While incorporating knowledge of the factors that influence animal population dynamics can improve population forecasts, we suggest that comparing forecast performance metrics can likewise improve our knowledge of the factors driving population dynamics.

Indexed as

RodentiaWolvesAnimalsForecastingPopulation DynamicsWeatherCastor canadensiscomplexitydensity dependenceforecast performancehindcastinformation criterialong-term datamodel validationpopulation dynamicspredictiontime series analysiswolf

Identifiers

PMID32583507
PMCPMC7816246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.