Evaluating the relationship between ecological and habitat conditions using hierarchical models

Article

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between an index of biological community state and habitat is important for policy makers and environmental managers. A common approach to modeling this relationship is to use regression. However, this simple method becomes complicated when the data are clustered and have both within-cluster and between-cluster spatial correlation. This article proposes a Bayesian hierarchical model that incorporates both types of spatial correlation. This model yields both an understanding of the within-cluster relationships as well as an overall relationship between these variables. We apply this method to evaluate the relationship between the index of biotic integrity (a common measure of fish condition) and the qualitative habitat evaluation index (a common measure of habitat quality). This method allows us to show that there is a relationship between the biological community state and habitat and that this relationship varies across river basins, while accounting for the within- and between-spatial correlations.

Key Words

Bayesian methods Biological monitoring Ecological health Spatial statistics Stressor-response 

References

  1. Berger, J. O. (1985), Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis (2nd ed.), New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullock, B. P. (2002), “Diameter Distributions of Juvenile Stands of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) With Different Planting Densities,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  3. Cressie, N. A. C. (1993), Statistics for Spatial Data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Gelman, A., Carlin J. B., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. (1995), Bayesian Data Analysis, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Hall and CRC Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996), Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, London: Chapman and Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Haining, R. (1990), Spatial Data Analysis for the Social and Environmental Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kass, R., and Raftery, A. (1995), “Bayes Factors,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lipkovich, I. A., Smith, E. P., Ye, K. (2002), “Evaluating the Impact of Environmental Stressors on Benthic Microinvertebrate Communities via Bayesian Model Averaging,” Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics (vol. VI), pp. 267–283.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Lipkovich, I. (2002), “Bayesian Model Averaging and Variable Selection in Multivariate Ecological Models,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  10. Norton, S. B. (1999), “Using Biological Monitoring Data to Distinguish Among Types of Stress in Streams of the Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
  11. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1988), Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II: Users Manual for Biological Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. WQMA-SWS-6.Google Scholar
  12. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1989), The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods and Application, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  13. Schabenberger, O., and Pierce, F. J. (2001), Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Hall and CRC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of North CarolinaWilmington
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsVirginia TechBlacksburg

Personalised recommendations