Rethinking ecological inference

Density dependence in reef fishes

Craig W. Osenberg, Colette M. St. Mary, Russell J. Schmitt, Sally J. Holbrook, Peter Chesson, Barbara A Byrne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

82 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We use a meta-analysis of density dependence in reef fishes to evaluate how ecologists approach detection, inference, and estimation. We compared two groups of studies: those that detected effects of density on survival and those that did not. Distinctions between these groups have spawned heated debate about the processes that affect fish dynamics. Per capita effects of density were similar between the two groups, although total effects (and hence ambient density) were greater in studies that detected density effects. The majority of the variation in effects of density was not resolved by the classification of studies based on the authors' conclusions. These results suggest (1) that standard inferences based on null hypothesis tests may miss important sources of variation in effects and give rise to unnecessary debate; and (2) that estimation of effect sizes and model parameters (including their uncertainty) is a powerful alternative to detection of ecological processes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)715-721
Number of pages7
JournalEcology Letters
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2002

Fingerprint

density dependence
reefs
reef
fish
ecologists
meta-analysis
effect
uncertainty
testing

Keywords

  • Estimation
  • Meta-analysis
  • Null hypothesis tests
  • P-values
  • Recruitment
  • Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology

Cite this

Osenberg, C. W., St. Mary, C. M., Schmitt, R. J., Holbrook, S. J., Chesson, P., & Byrne, B. A. (2002). Rethinking ecological inference: Density dependence in reef fishes. Ecology Letters, 5(6), 715-721. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00377.x

Rethinking ecological inference : Density dependence in reef fishes. / Osenberg, Craig W.; St. Mary, Colette M.; Schmitt, Russell J.; Holbrook, Sally J.; Chesson, Peter; Byrne, Barbara A.

In: Ecology Letters, Vol. 5, No. 6, 11.2002, p. 715-721.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Osenberg, CW, St. Mary, CM, Schmitt, RJ, Holbrook, SJ, Chesson, P & Byrne, BA 2002, 'Rethinking ecological inference: Density dependence in reef fishes', Ecology Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 715-721. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00377.x
Osenberg, Craig W. ; St. Mary, Colette M. ; Schmitt, Russell J. ; Holbrook, Sally J. ; Chesson, Peter ; Byrne, Barbara A. / Rethinking ecological inference : Density dependence in reef fishes. In: Ecology Letters. 2002 ; Vol. 5, No. 6. pp. 715-721.
@article{abe91e3ec4774a25bc421e3576f0ac15,
title = "Rethinking ecological inference: Density dependence in reef fishes",
abstract = "We use a meta-analysis of density dependence in reef fishes to evaluate how ecologists approach detection, inference, and estimation. We compared two groups of studies: those that detected effects of density on survival and those that did not. Distinctions between these groups have spawned heated debate about the processes that affect fish dynamics. Per capita effects of density were similar between the two groups, although total effects (and hence ambient density) were greater in studies that detected density effects. The majority of the variation in effects of density was not resolved by the classification of studies based on the authors' conclusions. These results suggest (1) that standard inferences based on null hypothesis tests may miss important sources of variation in effects and give rise to unnecessary debate; and (2) that estimation of effect sizes and model parameters (including their uncertainty) is a powerful alternative to detection of ecological processes.",
keywords = "Estimation, Meta-analysis, Null hypothesis tests, P-values, Recruitment, Survival",
author = "Osenberg, {Craig W.} and {St. Mary}, {Colette M.} and Schmitt, {Russell J.} and Holbrook, {Sally J.} and Peter Chesson and Byrne, {Barbara A}",
year = "2002",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00377.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "715--721",
journal = "Ecology Letters",
issn = "1461-023X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rethinking ecological inference

T2 - Density dependence in reef fishes

AU - Osenberg, Craig W.

AU - St. Mary, Colette M.

AU - Schmitt, Russell J.

AU - Holbrook, Sally J.

AU - Chesson, Peter

AU - Byrne, Barbara A

PY - 2002/11

Y1 - 2002/11

N2 - We use a meta-analysis of density dependence in reef fishes to evaluate how ecologists approach detection, inference, and estimation. We compared two groups of studies: those that detected effects of density on survival and those that did not. Distinctions between these groups have spawned heated debate about the processes that affect fish dynamics. Per capita effects of density were similar between the two groups, although total effects (and hence ambient density) were greater in studies that detected density effects. The majority of the variation in effects of density was not resolved by the classification of studies based on the authors' conclusions. These results suggest (1) that standard inferences based on null hypothesis tests may miss important sources of variation in effects and give rise to unnecessary debate; and (2) that estimation of effect sizes and model parameters (including their uncertainty) is a powerful alternative to detection of ecological processes.

AB - We use a meta-analysis of density dependence in reef fishes to evaluate how ecologists approach detection, inference, and estimation. We compared two groups of studies: those that detected effects of density on survival and those that did not. Distinctions between these groups have spawned heated debate about the processes that affect fish dynamics. Per capita effects of density were similar between the two groups, although total effects (and hence ambient density) were greater in studies that detected density effects. The majority of the variation in effects of density was not resolved by the classification of studies based on the authors' conclusions. These results suggest (1) that standard inferences based on null hypothesis tests may miss important sources of variation in effects and give rise to unnecessary debate; and (2) that estimation of effect sizes and model parameters (including their uncertainty) is a powerful alternative to detection of ecological processes.

KW - Estimation

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Null hypothesis tests

KW - P-values

KW - Recruitment

KW - Survival

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036849996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036849996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00377.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00377.x

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 715

EP - 721

JO - Ecology Letters

JF - Ecology Letters

SN - 1461-023X

IS - 6

ER -