Isomorphic chain graphs for modeling spatial dependence in ecological data
Graphical models (alternatively, Bayesian belief networks, path analysis models) are increasingly used for modeling complex ecological systems (e.g., Lee, In: Ferson S, Burgman M(eds) Quantative methods for conservation biology. Springer, Berlin Heilin Heideslperk New York, pp.127–147, 2000; Borsuk et al., J Water Res Plann Manage 129:271–282, 2003). Their implementation in this context leverages their utility in modeling interrelationships in multivariate systems, and in a Bayesian implementation, their intuitive appeal of yielding easily interpretable posterior probability estimates. However, methods for incorporating correlational structure to account for observations collected through time and/or space—features of most ecological data—have not been widely studied; Haas et al. (AI Appl 8:15–27, 1994) is one exception. In this paper, an “isomorphic” chain graph (ICG) model is introduced to account for correlation between samples by linking site-specific Bayes network models. Several results show that the ICG preserves many of the Markov properties (conditional and marginal dependencies) of the site-specific models. The ICG model is compared with a model that does not account for spatial correlation. Data from several stream networks in the Willamette River valley, Oregon (USA) are used. Significant correlation between sites within the same stream network is shown with an ICG model.
KeywordsBayesian belief network Graphical model Spatial correlation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Congdon P (2003) Applied Bayesian modelling. Wiley, West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
- Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Haas TC, Mowrer HT, Sheppard WD (1994) Modeling aspen stand growth with a temporal Bayes network. AI Appli 8:15–27Google Scholar
- Lauritzen SL, Dawid AP, Larsen BN, Leimer H-G (1990) Independence properties of directed Markov fields. Networks 20:491–505Google Scholar
- Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San MateoGoogle Scholar
- Pearl J (2000) Causality: models, reasoning and inference. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 5:461–464Google Scholar
- Spielgelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS user manual. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs, last accessed April 2005Google Scholar
- Spirtes P, Glymour C, Scheines R (1993) Causation, prediction, and search. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York; Tetrad 4.3, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, http://www.phil.cmu.edu/tetrad, last accessed April 2005Google Scholar
- Van Sickle J, Baker J, Herlihy A, Bayley P, Gregory S, Haggerty P, Ashkenas L, Li J (2004) Projecting the biological condition of streams under alternative scenarios of human land use. Ecol Appl 14:368–380Google Scholar
- Verma T, Pearl J (1992) An algorithm for deciding if a set of observed independencies has a causal explanation. In: Dubois D, Wellman M, D’Ambrosio B, Smets P, (eds) Proceedings of the eighth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, pp 323–330Google Scholar
- Wright JF, Furse MT, Armitage PD (1993) RIVPACS: a technique for evaluating the biological water quality of rivers in the UK. Eur Water Pollut Control 3:15–25Google Scholar