Ecologists use null models to compare observed data with assumed random patterns. Recognition of patterns is challenging: there may be different plausible "null" hypotheses. Null model analyses of presence / absence data in ecology can be characterized into two broad categories.
Ecologists use null models to compare observed data with assumed random patterns. Recognition of patterns is challenging: there may be different plausible "null" hypotheses. Null model analyses of presence / absence data in ecology can be characterized into two broad categories.
Ecologists use null models to compare observed data with assumed random patterns. Recognition of patterns is challenging: there may be different plausible "null" hypotheses. Null model analyses of presence / absence data in ecology can be characterized into two broad categories.
Combining Generalized Linear Models and Monte Carlo Testing for the Detection of Non-Random Patterns Applied Statistics 2007 International Conference Ribno, Slovenia Jorge Navarro-Alberto UADY. Yucatn, Mxico
Bryan F. J. Manly WEST, Inc. Wyoming, USA Outline Why ecologists use null models? Statistical approaches for null model analyses of presence-absence data (e.g. species occurrences on locations) Generalized linear models as a tool Testing non random patterns via Monte Carlo Properties of the combined GLM-Monte Carlo method Comparison to other approaches Conclusions From an ecological point of view, NMs are useful for pattern detection. How? Compare a realization of an observed ecological process and an associated model that aims to eliminate the effect of that particular ecological process: the null model (Harvey et al. 1983). Tools for analysis of data generated by non- experimental procedures, typical of community and biogeographical studies, in an experimental setting. The usual terminology and interpretation of hypothesis testing of experimental data, like Type I and Type II errors, are applicable Ecologists use null models to compare observed data Con el propsito de comparar datos observados con modelos que asumen patrones al azar, los eclogos acuden a los llamados modelos nulos. Sin embargo, el uso de los modelos nulos ha estado rodeado de controversia.
Presence and absence of species in systems of patches provide basic information in ecology and biogeography. For the purpose of comparing the observed data with assumed random patterns, ecologists and biogeographers have resorted to using null models via simulation. However, recognition of patterns is challenging: there may be different plausible null hypotheses associated to different randomization protocols. Null model analyses of presence/absence data in ecology (e.g., occurrences of species on particular locations) can be characterized into two broad categories: those where the simulation protocols keep row (species) and column (location) totals fixed in the null matrices, and those where row and/or column totals are allowed to vary. In contrast to the research devoted to the first type of null models, relatively little research has been done to study the properties of the latter. we describe a strategy for null model construction by means of generalized linear models for presence-absence data. Assumptions for the generalized linear models (GLMs) are that (1) occurrences are independent of each other; (2) species and island effects are the only explanatory variables for each observation in the matrix; and (3) the relationship between the occurrence of each species-location combination and the species and location effects is non-linear. For model definition, observable presence- absence data are related with unobservable hypothetical distributions of the number of elements (called the "quasiabundance") of each species-location combination; these distributions are interpreted as different scenarios of species occurrences from where the best fitting model is selected among a range of competitor null models. The method produces fitted cell probabilities, which are subsequently used for the detection of non-random patterns in the observed matrices, via parametric bootstrap. As a consequence, the simulation protocol allows both row and column totals to vary from one simulation to the other. Monte Carlo tests applied to suitable metrics for the observed and simulated matrices are then used to evaluate the adequacy of species and location effects for the prediction of each species-location combination. Properties of the observed data matrices (e.g., sparseness and degeneracy) and constraints in the simulation protocols are also evaluated. Finally, using as statistic the estimated proportion of allocated presences in each cell of randomly generated matrices, it is shown that the set of null matrices in the GLM approach can be different from the set of null matrices obtained with three algorithms keeping row and column totals fixed. It is confirmed also that there may be differences in the null universe of matrices produced by different versions of this latter simulation protocol.