Finite Mixture of Regression Modeling for High-Dimensional Count and Biomass Data in Ecology

  • Piers K. Dunstan
  • Scott D. Foster
  • Francis K. C. Hui
  • David I. Warton
Article

Abstract

Understanding how species distributions respond as a function of environmental gradients is a key question in ecology, and will benefit from a multi-species approach. Multi-species data are often high dimensional, in that the number of species sampled is often large relative to the number of sites, and are commonly quantified as either presence–absence, counts of individuals, or biomass of each species. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to the analysis of multi-species data when the goal is to understand how each species responds to their environment. We use a finite mixture of regression models, grouping species into “Archetypes” according to their environmental response, thereby significantly reducing the dimension of the regression model. Previous research introduced such Species Archetype Models (SAMs), but only for binary assemblage data. Here, we extend this basic framework with three key innovations: (1) the method is expanded to handle count and biomass data, (2) we propose grouping on the slope coefficients only, whilst the intercept terms and nuisance parameters remain species-specific, and (3) we develop model diagnostic tools for SAMs. By grouping on environmental responses only, the model allows for inter-species variation in terms of overall prevalence and abundance. The application of our expanded SAM framework data is illustrated on marine survey data and through simulation.

Supplementary materials accompanying this paper appear on-line.

Key Words

Community-level model Mixture model Multi-species Species archetype model Species distribution model Tweedie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

13253_2013_146_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.9 mb)
(PDF 3.9 MB)

References

  1. Aitkin, M., and Aitkin, I. (1996), “A Hybrid EM/Gauss–Newton Algorithm for Maximum Likelihood in Mixture Distributions,” Statistics and Computing, 6, 127–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. J., Crist, T. O., Chase, J. M., Vellend, M., Inouye, B. D., Freestone, A. L., Sanders, N. J., Cornell, H. V., Comita, L. S., Davies, K. F., Harrison, S. P., Kraft, N. J. B., Stegen, J. C., and Swenson, N. G. (2011), “Navigating the Multiple Meanings of β Diversity: A Roadmap for the Practicing Ecologist,” Ecology Letters, 14, 19–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bax, N., and Williams, A. (2000), “Habitat and Fisheries Production in the South East Fishery Ecosystem,” Final Report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project No. 94/040. Google Scholar
  4. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, D. B. (1977), “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39, 1–38. MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn, J. R., and Ridgway, K. R. (2002), “Mapping Ocean Properties in Regions of Complex Topography,” Deep-Sea Research. Part 1. Oceanographic Research Papers, 49, 591–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn, P., and Smyth, G. (2005), “Series Evaluation of Tweedie Exponential Dispersion Model Densities,” Statistics and Computing, 15, 267–280. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunn, P. K., and Smyth, G. K. (1996), “Randomized Quantile Residuals,” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5, 236–244. Google Scholar
  8. Dunstan, P., Foster, S., and Darnell, R. (2011), “Model Based Grouping of Species Across Environmental Gradients,” Ecological Modelling, 222, 955–963. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster, S., and Bravington, M. (2013), “A Poisson-Gamma Model for Analysis of Ecological Non-negative Continuous Data,” Journal of Environmental and Ecological Statistics, in press. Google Scholar
  10. Geoscience Australia (2009), “GA Australian Bathymetry and Topography Grid, ANZLIC Metadata ANZCW0703013116.” Tech. rep., Australian Government Geoscience Australia. Google Scholar
  11. Gleason, H. A. (1926), “The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association,” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 53, 7–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hilbe, J. M. (2007), Negative Binomial Regression, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hui, F. K. C., Warton, D. J., Foster, S., and Dunstan, P. (2013), “To Mix or Not to Mix: Comparing the Predictive Performance of Mixture Models Versus Separate SDMs,” Ecology, in press. Google Scholar
  14. Ives, A. R., and Helmus, M. R. (2011), “Generalized Linear Mixed Models for Phylogenetic Analyses of Community Structure,” Ecological Monographs, 81, 511–525. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jørgenson, B. (1997), The Theory of Dispersion Models, London: Chapman and Hall. Google Scholar
  16. Keribin, C. (2000), “Consistent Estimation of the Order of Mixture Models,” Sankhya. The Indian Journal of Statistics, 62, 49–66. MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Khalili, A., and Chen, J. (2007), “Variable Selection in Finite Mixture of Regression Models,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 1025–1038. MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, J., Ban, J., and Santiago, L. (2011), “Nonparametric Tests for Homogeneity of Species Assemblages: A Data Depth Approach,” Biometrics, 67, 1481–1488. MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1989), Generalized Linear Models (2nd ed.), London: Chapman & Hall. CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. McLachlan, G., and Peel, D. (2000), Finite Mixture Models, New York: Wiley. CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Nash, S. G., and Sofer, A. (1996), Linear and Nonlinear Programming (1st ed.), McGraw-Hill Series in Industrial Engineering and Management Science, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Google Scholar
  22. Novotny, V., Miller, S., Hulcr, J., Drew, R., Basset, Y., Janda, M., Setliff, G., Darrow, K., Stewart, A., Auga, J., Isua, B., Molem, K., Manumbor, M., Tamtiai, E., Mogia, M., and Weiblen, G. (2007), “Low Beta Diversity of Herbivorous Insects in Tropical Forests,” Nature, 448, 692–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oehlert, G. (1992), “A Note on the Delta Method,” American Statistician, 46, 27–29. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Ovaskainen, O., Hottola, J., and Siitonen, J. (2010), “Modeling Species Co-occurrence by Multivariate Logistic Regression Generates New Hypotheses on Fungal Interactions,” Ecology, 91, 2514–2521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ovaskainen, O., and Soininen, J. (2011), “Making More Out of Sparse Data: Hierarchical Modeling of Species Communities,” Ecology, 92, 289–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peel, D., Bravington, M. V., Kelly, N., Wood, S. N., and Knuckey, I. (2013), “A Model-Based Approach to Designing a Fishery Independent Survey,” Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, 18, 1–21. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Ricklefs, R. E. (2008), “Disintegration of the Ecological Community,” The American Naturalist, 172, 741–750. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ridgway, K. R., Dunn, J. R., and Wilkin, J. L. (2002), “Ocean Interpolation by Four-Dimensional Weighted Least Squares—Application to the Waters Around Australia,” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 19, 1357–1375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross, L., Woodin, S., Hester, A., Thompson, D., and Birks, H. (2012), “Biotic Homogenization of Upland Vegetation: Patterns and Drivers at Multiple Spatial Scales Over Five Decades,” Journal of Vegetation Science. Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, L. (1961), “Aggregation, Variance and the Mean,” Nature, 189, 732–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thibault, K., Supp, S., Giffin, M., White, E., and Ernest, S. (2011), “Species Composition and Abundance of Mammalian Communities,” Ecology, 92, 2316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Venables, W. N., and Ripley, B. D. (1999), Modern Applied Statistics With S (4th ed.), New York: Springer. CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Warton, D. I. (2011), “Regularized Sandwich Estimators for Analysis of High Dimensional Data Using Generalized Estimating Equations,” Biometrics, 67, 116–123. MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Warton, D. I., Wright, S. T., and Wang, Y. (2012), “Distance-Based Multivariate Analyses Confound Location and Dispersion Effects,” Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 89–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wedel, M., and DeSarbo, W. (1995), “A Mixture Likelihood Approach for Generalized Linear Models,” Journal of Classification, 12, 21–55. CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Weisberg, S. (2005), Applied Linear Regression (3rd ed.), Hoboken: Wiley. CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Yee, T. W. (2010), “The VGAM Package for Categorical Data Analysis,” Journal of Statistical Software, 32, 1–34. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piers K. Dunstan
    • 1
  • Scott D. Foster
    • 2
  • Francis K. C. Hui
    • 3
  • David I. Warton
    • 3
  1. 1.CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric ResearchHobartAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Mathematics, Informatics and StatisticsHobartAustralia
  3. 3.School of Mathematics and StatisticsThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations