ArticleEcology2025
Sample size considerations for species co-occurrence models.
Article in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multispecies occupancy models are widely applied to infer interactions in the occurrence of different species, but convergence and estimation issues under realistic sample sizes are common. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the ability of a recently developed model to recover co-occurrence estimates under varying sample size and interaction scenarios while increasing model complexity in two dimensions: the number of interacting species and the number of covariates. Using both standard and penalized likelihood, we demonstrate that the ability to quantify interactions in species occupancy using this model is highly sensitive to sample size, detection probability, and interaction strength. In the simplest scenario, there is high bias in the interaction parameter (used for co-occurrence inference) with less than 100 sites at high detection, and 400-1000 sites at low detection, depending on interaction strength. Strong co-occurrence is detected consistently above 200 sites with high detection probabilities, but weak co-occurrence is never consistently detected even with 2980 sites. We demonstrate that the mean predictive ability of the co-occurrence model is less affected by sample size, with low bias in derived probabilities at 50 sites. Our results highlight that while occupancy patterns are often robust to sample size limitations, reliable inference about co-occurrence demands substantially larger datasets than many studies currently achieve. We caution the interpretation of model output in small datasets or when co-occurrence is expected to be weak, but show methods are suitable to quantify strong co-occurrence in larger datasets and generate predictions of site occupancy states.
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.