To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Raptors play a unique role in ecosystem services and are regarded as effective indicators of ecosystem health. In recent years, varieties of anthropogenic factors have threatened the majority of raptor species worldwide. Nepal is considered a global hotspot for threatened and declining raptor species, but there is limited information on the direct human threats to the raptor populations living in the country. In this paper, we identify important anthropogenic threats to raptors in Nepal based on raptor mortality data collected by powerline surveys and from monitoring of GPS-tagged raptors, complete various reports, and social media. We found that powerlines, poisoning, and persecution, mainly shooting, are significant threats to raptors in Nepal that were largely overlooked previously. We report 54 electrocuted raptors affecting eight species, 310 poisoned raptors of 11 species, and five persecuted raptors of four species; among them vultures are the most affected (>88%). Based on our findings, to safeguard the future of Nepal’s raptors, we propose the retrofitting of power poles and the use of flight diverters on powerlines in the most affected areas to reduce raptor interactions with powerlines, as well as an effective conservation education programme to prevent the use of unintentional poisoning.
In 1866, Charles F. Hall recorded testimony from a Pelly Bay native named Sŭ-pung-er who reported that together with his uncle, they had visited the Northwest coast of King William Island 4 years prior in search of materials abandoned by the Franklin Expedition. Sŭ-pung-er told Hall that he had identified a site which Hall believed was a “vault” which might contain documents and speculated that it could have been a burial site for a high-ranking officer. Sŭ-pung-er’s testimony also included the description of a wooden “pillar, stick or post” which marked the spot of the vault. The location of this site and the pillar have never been found. Yet they remain sought-after for both their significance and the potential bonanza of information about the expedition. Any clue or artefact, which could provide clarity for this site, is therefore of great value. This paper describes a model of the pillar seen on King Williams Island, replicated by Sŭ-pung-er, which Hall brought back from the Arctic and included in his list of Franklin relics. The model, now housed in the Smithsonian Museum of American History, was first featured in a drawing of relics appearing in 1869 in Harper’s Weekly magazine. The fact that this artefact has been in plain sight for so long, but unrecognised for what it is, is significant. The pillar model both provides clarity and continues the mystery surrounding the Franklin Expedition.
The sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon longurio) is among the top three shark species captured by artisanal fisheries of the Gulf of California. This study includes information regarding the feeding habits of this species using the stomach contents of 70 individuals ranged from 54 to 109 cm in total length (TL). Out of the 16 prey items identified, fish of the families Scombridae (Scomber japonicus; prey-specific relative importance index [%PSIRI] = 6.3) and Batrachoididae (%PSIRI = 5.5), the cephalopod Lolliguncula spp. (%PSIRI = 6.3), and the crustacean Pleuroncodes planipes (%PSIRI = 4.3) were the most important prey. Only female stomachs were obtained (N = 19) in the central area of the gulf, and the PSIRI indicated that the preferred prey were the cephalopod Lolliguncula spp. (%PSIRI = 10.5) and fish of the Sparidae family (Calamus brachysomus; %PSIRI = 5.8). The number of stomachs was not sufficient to analyse differences by sex. Regarding its trophic position, R. longurio was a tertiary consumer (TLK = 4.4). A TLK = 4.4 was calculated for the central area, and a TLK = 4.3 for the southern area. According to Levin's index (Bi), this shark is a specialist predator in the whole study area (Bi = 0.19), including the centre (Bi = 0.29). Conversely, it was considered a generalist predator in the southern area (Bi = 0.63). The high quantity of empty stomachs could relate to the time the sharks were caught in fishing a gear.
Another way of examining the patterns among objects based on multiple variables is to plot the objects in multidimensional space based on their pairwise dissimilarities. We first describe multidimensional scaling as a very flexible ordination method that can be based on a wide range of dissimilarities. We also introduce cluster analysis based on dissimilarities, where the pattern among objects is represented in a tree-like plot called a dendrogram. We show how to correlate dissimilarities to other continuous and/or grouping variables and fit linear models that treat the dissimilarities as responses modeled against continuous or categorical predictors.
We can easily find ourselves with lots of predictors. This situation has been common in ecology and environmental science but has spread to other biological disciplines as genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc., become widespread. Models can become very complex, and with many predictors, collinearity is more likely. Fitting the models is tricky, particularly if we’re looking for the “best” model, and the way we approach the task depends on how we’ll use the model results. This chapter describes different model selection approaches for multiple regression models and discusses ways of measuring the importance of specific predictors. It covers stepwise procedures, all subsets, information criteria, model averaging and validation, and introduces regression trees, including boosted trees.
Earlier chapters introduced modeling approaches for a continuous, normally distributed response. Biological data are often not so neat, and the common practice was to transform continuous response variables until the assumption of normality was met. Other kinds of data, particularly presence–absence and behavioral responses and counts, are discrete rather than continuous and require a different approach. In this chapter, we introduce generalized linear models and their extension to generalized linear mixed models to analyze these response variables. We show how common techniques such as contingency tables, loglinear models, and logistic and Poisson regression can be viewed as generalized linear models, using link functions to create the appropriate relationship between response and predictors. The models described in earlier chapters can be reinterpreted as a version of generalized linear models with the identity link function. We finish by introducing generalized additive models for where a linear model may be unsuitable.
Forest raptor nest-site selection is mostly influenced by the quality of the habitat, food resources, and competition. Here, we identified common targets of trees selected as breeding sites and differences in selection traits, i.e. prey availability and intra- and interspecific competition, among Booted Eagle, Long-legged Buzzard, Black Kite, and Common Kestrel in a Mediterranean Cork Oak forest (private protected reserve of 25 km2). Using generalised linear mixed models we developed species-specific models describing nesting habitat selection. We tested the overlap in nesting habitat selection among species using environmental principal component analysis. The densities of forest raptor breeding pairs were high (3.1 pairs/km2) and the distance between occupied territories was short, strongly connected with food availability and competition. The results showed that all the species, with the exception of Common Kestrel, selected for nesting areas characterised by higher conspecific distance, highlighting the importance of conspecific competition. Booted Eagle and Black Kite selected areas with a high abundance of rabbits. The height of the nesting tree, the size and distance between surrounding trees, and the scrub cover were significant habitat characteristics for Booted Eagle and Long-legged Buzzard. Indeed, the environmental analyses showed a moderate nest site overlap between Black Kite and both Booted Eagle and Long-legged Buzzard, and a high overlap between Common Kestrel and both Booted Eagle and Long-legged Buzzard. Our study improves knowledge of the habitat requirements for nest selection and the potential competitive interactions between these raptor species in Mediterranean forests, and highlights the need for implementation of habitat management and conservation strategies.
Confronting models with data is only effective when the statistical model matches the biological one and the structure of your data collection is right for the statistical model. We outline some basic principles of sampling, emphasizing the importance of randomization. Randomization is also essential to experimental design, but so are controls, replication of experimental units, and independence of experimental units. This chapter emphasizes the distinction between sampling or experimental units representing independent instances and observational units representing things we measure or count from those units. Observational units may be subsamples of experimental units, but shouldn’t be confused with them. In this chapter, we also introduce methods for deciding how much data you need.
All statistical models have assumptions, and violation of these assumptions can affect the reliability of any conclusions we draw. Before we fit any statistical model, we need to explore the data to be sure we fit a valid model. Are relationships assumed to be a straight line really linear? Does the response variable follow the assumed distribution? Are variances consistent? We outline several graphical techniques for exploring data and introduce the analysis of model residuals as a powerful tool. If assumptions are violated, we consider two solutions, transforming variables to satisfy assumptions and using models that assume different distributions more consistent with the raw data and residuals. The exploratory stage can be extensive, but it is essential. At this pre-analysis stage, we also consider what to do about missing observations.
We don’t always have a single response variable, and disciplines like community ecology or the new “omics” bring rich datasets. Chapters 14–16 introduce the treatment of these multivariate data, with multiple variables recorded for each unit or “object.” We start with how we measure association between variables and use eigenanalysis to reduce the original variables to a smaller number of summary components or functions while retaining most of the variation. Then we look at the broad range of measures of dissimilarity or distance between objects based on the variables. Both approaches allow examination of relationships among objects and can be used in linear modeling when response and predictor variables are identified. We also highlight the important role of transformations and standardizations when interpreting multivariate analyses.
Biological data commonly involve multiple predictors. This chapter starts expanding our models to include multiple categorical predictors (factors) when they are in factorial designs. These designs allow us to introduce synergistic effects – interactions. Two- and three-factor designs are used to illustrate the estimation and interpretation of interactions. Our approach is first to consider the most complex interactions and use them to decide whether it is helpful to continue examining simple interactions. Main effects – single predictors acting independently of each other – are the last to be considered. We also deal with problems caused by missing observations (unbalanced designs) and missing cells (fractional and incomplete factorials) and discuss how to estimate and interpret them.
It’s surprisingly common for biologists to combine crossed and nested factors. These designs are partly nested or split-plot designs. They are nearly always mixed models, usually a random nested effect and at least two fixed effects. We describe the analysis of these designs, starting with a simple three-factor design with a single between-plot and a single within-plot effect, extending this analysis to include multiple effects, including interactions at this level, and adding continuous predictors (covariates).
Most biological ideas can be viewed as models of nature we create to explain phenomena and predict outcomes in new situations. We use data to determine these models’ credibility. We translate our biological models into statistical ones, then confront those models with data. A mismatch suggests the biological model needs refinement. A biological idea can also be considered a signal that appears in the data among the background noise. Fitting the model to the data lets us see if such a signal exists and, importantly, measure its strength. This approach only works well if our biological hypotheses are clear, the statistical models match the biology, and we collect the data appropriately. This clarity is the starting point for any biological research program.
For this book, we assume you’ve had an introductory statistics or experimental design class already! This chapter is a mini refresher of some critical concepts we’ll be using and lets you check you understand them correctly. The topics include understanding predictor and response variables, the common probability distributions that biologists encounter in their data, the common techniques, particularly ordinary least squares (OLS) and maximum likelihood (ML), for fitting models to data and estimating effects, including their uncertainty. You should be familiar with confidence intervals and understand what hypothesis tests and P-values do and don’t mean. You should recognize that we use data to decide, but these decisions can be wrong, so you need to understand the risk of missing important effects and the risk of falsely claiming an effect. Decisions about what constitutes an “important” effect are central.