Abstract
The currently dominating hypothetico-deductive research paradigm for ecology has statistical hypothesis testing as a basic element. Classic statistical hypothesis testing does, however, present the ecologist with two fundamental dilemmas when field data are to be analyzed: (1) that the statistically motivated demand for a random and representative sample and the ecologically motivated demand for representation of variation in the study area cannot be fully met at the same time; and (2) that the statistically motivated demand for independence of errors calls for sampling distances that exceed the scales of relevant pattern-generating processes, so that samples with statistically desirable properties will be ecologically irrelevant. Reasons for these dilemmas are explained by consideration of the classic statistical Neyman-Pearson test procedure, properties of ecological variables, properties of sampling designs, interactions between properties of the ecological variables and properties of sampling designs, and specific assumptions of the statistical methods. Analytic solutions to problems underlying the dilemmas are briefly reviewed. I conclude that several important research objectives cannot be approached without subjective elements in sampling designs.
I argue that a research strategy entirely based on rigorous statistical testing of hypotheses is insufficient for field ecological data and that inductive and deductive approaches are complementary in the process of building ecological knowledge. I recommend that great care is taken when statistical tests are applied to ecological field data. Use of less formal modelling approaches is recommended for cases when formal testing is not strictly needed. Sets of recommendations, “Guidelines for wise use of statistical tools”, are proposed both for testing and for modelling. Important elements of wise-use guidelines are parallel use of methods that preferably belong to different methodologies, selection of methods with few and less rigorous assumptions, conservative interpretation of results, and abandonment of definitive decisions based a predefined significance level.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Applegate R.D. (1999): Diversity and natural history observation in ecology.Oikos 87: 587–588.
Austin M.P. (1981): Permanent quadrats: an interface for theory and practice.Vegetatio 46–47: 1–10.
Bakker J.P., Olff H., Willems J.H. &Zobel M. (1996): Why do we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics?J. Veg. Sci. 7: 147–156.
Bergeron Y. &Dansereau P.-R. (1993): Predicting the composition of Canadian southern boreal forest in different fire cycles.J. Veg. Sci. 4: 827–832.
Bonet A. &Pausas J.G. (2004): Species richness and cover along a 60-year chronosequence in old-fields of southeastern Spain.Pl. Ecol. 174: 257–270.
Crawley M.J. (2002):Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, Chichester.
Dahl E. (1957): Rondane: Mountain vegetation in South Norway and its relation to the environment.Skr. Norske Vidensk.-Akad. Oslo, Mat.-Naturvidensk. Kl. 1956: 3: 1–374.
Dixon P.M., Ellison A.M. &Gotelli N.J. (2005): Improving the precision of estimates of the frequency of rare events.Ecology 86: 1114–1123.
Dungan J.L., Perry J.N., Dale M.R.T., Legendre P., Citron-Pousty S., Fortin M.-J., Jakomulska A., Miriti M. &Rosenberg M.S. (2002): A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis.Ecography 25: 626–640.
Dutilleul P. (1993): Modifying thet-test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes.Biometrics 49: 305–314.
Eilertsen O. (1991): Vegetation patterns and structuring processes in coastal shell-beds at Akerøya, Hvaler, SE Norway.Sommerfeltia 12: 1–90.
Foster B.L. &Tilman D. (2000): Dynamic and static views of succession: testing the descriptive power of the chronosequence approach.Pl. Ecol. 146: 1–10.
Fransson S. (1972): Myrvegetation i sydvästra Värmland (Mire vegetation in SW Värmland).Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 57: 1–133.
Gjærevoll O. (1956): The plant communities of the Scandinavian alpine snow-beds.Kongel. Norske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. (Trondheim) 1956: 1: 1–405.
Halvorsen R. (1980): Numerical analysis and successional relationships of shell-bed vegetation at Akeroya, Hvaler, SE Norway.Norweg. J. Bot. 27: 71–95.
Harper K.A., Bergeron Y., Drapeau P., Gauthier S. &de Grandpré L. (2005): Structural development following fire in black spruce boreal forest.Forest Ecol. Managem. 206: 293–306.
Hastie T., Tibshirani R. &Friedman J. (2001):The elements of statistical learning. Springer, New York.
Heegaard E. (2002): A model of alpine species distribution in relation to snowmelt time and altitude.J. Veg. Sci. 13: 493–504.
Hurlbert S.H. (1984): Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments.Ecol. Monogr. 54: 187–211.
Hurlbert S.H. (2004): On misinterpretation of pseudoreplication and related matters: a reply to Oksanen.Oikos 104: 591–597.
Jonsson B.G. &Moen J. (1998): Patterns in species associations in plant communities: the importance of scale.J. Veg. Sci. 9: 327–332.
Kent M. &Balllard J. (1988): Trends and problems in the application of classification and ordination methods in plant ecology.Vegetatio 78: 109–124.
Lájer K. (2007): Statistical tests as inappropriate tools for data analysis performed on non-random samples of plant communities.Folia Geobot. 42: 115–122.
Lawesson J.E. &Oksanen J. (2002): Niche characteristics of Danish woody species as derived from coenoclines.J. Veg. Sci. 13: 279–290.
Lawton J.H. (1996): Patterns in ecology.Oikos 75: 145–147.
Lawton J.H. (1999): Are there general laws in ecology?Oikos 84: 177–192.
Legendre P. (1993): Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm?Ecology 74: 1659–1673.
Legendre P., Dale M.R.T., Fortin M.-J., Gurevitch J., Hohn M. &Myers D. (2002): The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys.Ecography 25: 601–615.
Legendre P. &Legendre L. (1998):Numerical ecology, Ed. 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Lehmann E.L. (1993): The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson theories of testing hypotheses: one theory or two?J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88: 1242–1249.
Malmer N. (1962): Studies on mire vegetation in the Archaean area of Southwestern Götaland (South Sweden). I. Vegetation and habitat conditions on the Åkhult mire.Opera Bot. 7: 1: 1–322.
Mathiassen G. & Økland R.H. (2007): Relative importance of host tree species and environmental gradients for epiphytic species composition, exemplified byPyrenomycetes s.lat. (Ascomycota) onSalix in Central North Scandinavia.Ecography 30: in press.
McCullagh P. &Nelder J.A. (1989):Generalized linear models, Ed. 2. Chapman & Hall, London.
McCulloch C.E. &Searle S.R. (2002):Generalized, linear, and mixed models. Wiley, New York.
Minchin P.R. (1987): An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination.Vegetatio 69: 89–107.
Murray B.G.J. (2000): Universal laws and predictive theory in ecology and evolution.Oikos 89: 403–408.
Murray B.G.J. (2001): Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific?Biol. Rev. 76: 255–289.
Nekola J.C. &White P.S. (1999): The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology.J. Biogeogr. 26: 867–878.
Nordhagen R. (1943): Sikilsdalen og Norges fjellbeiter.Bergens Mus. Skr. 22: 1–607.
Noss R.F. (1996): The naturalists are dying off.Conservation Biol. 10: 1–3.
Ohlson M., Økland R.H., Nordbakken J.-F. &Dahlberg B. (2001): Fatal interactions between Scots pine and Sphagnum mosses in bog ecosystems.Oikos 94: 425–432.
Økland R.H. (1986): Rescaling of ecological gradients. II. The effect of scale on symmetry of species response curves.Nord. J. Bot. 6: 661–670.
Økland R.H. (1989): A phytoecological study of the mire Northern Kisselbergmosen, SE Norway. I. Introduction, flora, vegetation and ecological conditions.Sommerfeltia 8: 1–172.
Økland R.H. (1990a): Vegetation ecology: theory, methods and applications with reference to Fennoscandia.Sommerfeltia Suppl. 1: 1–233.
Økland R.H. (1990b): A phytoecological study of the mire Northern Kisselbergmosen, Rødenes, SE Norway. II. Identification of gradients by detrended (canonical) correspondence analysis.Nord. J. Bot. 10: 79–108.
Økland R.H. (1996): Are ordination and constrained ordination alternative or complementary strategies in general ecological studies?J. Veg. Sci. 7: 289–292.
Økland R.H. (1999): On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axes.J. Veg. Sci. 10: 131–136.
Økland R.H. &Eilertsen O. (1993): Vegetation-environment relationships of boreal coniferous forests in the Solhomfjell area, Gjerstad, S Norway.Sommerfeltia 16: 1–254.
Økland R.H., Økland T. &Rydgren K. (2001): Vegetation-environment relationships of boreal spruce swamp forests in Østmarka Nature Reserve, SE Norway.Sommerfeltia 29: 1–190.
Økland R.H., Rydgren K. &Økland T. (1999): Single-tree influence on understorey vegetation in a Norwegian boreal spruce forest.Oikos 87: 488–498.
Økland R.H., Rydgren K. &Økland T. (2003): Plant species composition of boreal spruce swamp forests: closed doors and windows of opportunity.Ecology 84: 1909–1919.
Økland T. (1988): An ecological approach to the investigation of a beech forest in Vestfold, SE Norway.Nord. J. Bot. 8: 375–407.
Økland T. (1996): Vegetation-environment relationships of boreal spruce forest in ten monitoring reference areas in Norway.Sommerfeltia 22: 1–349.
Økland T., Rydgren K., Økland R.H., Storaunet K.O. &Rolstad J. (2003): Variation in environmental conditions, understorey species richness, abundance and composition among natural and managedPicea abies forest stands.Forest Ecol. Managem. 177: 17–37.
Oksanen L. (2001): Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue?Oikos 94: 27–38.
Oksanen L. (2004): The devil lies in details: reply to Hurlbert.Oikos 104: 598–605.
Palmer M.W. (1988): Fractal geometry: a tool for describing spatial patterns of plant communities.Vegetatio 75: 91–102.
Peters R.H. (1991):A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pinheiro J.C. &Bates D.M. (2000):Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York.
Popper K.R. (1989):Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London.
Pukkala T., Kuuluvainen T. &Stenberg P. (1993): Below-canopy distribution of photosynthetically active radiation and its relation to seedling growth in a borealPinus sylvestris stand. A simulation approach.Scand. J. Forest Res. 8: 313–325.
Rossi R.E., Mulla D.J., Journel A.G. &Franz E.H. (1992): Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence.Ecol. Monogr. 62: 277–314.
Rydgren K., Økland R.H. &Økland T. (2003): Species response curves along environmental gradients. A case study from SE Norwegian swamp forests.J. Veg. Sci. 14: 869–880.
Sjörs H. (1948): Myrvegetation i Bergslagen (Mire vegetation in Bergslagen).Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 21: 1–299.
Skrindo A. &Økland R.H. (1998): Fertilization effects and vegetation-environment relationships in a boreal pine forest in Åmli, S Norway.Sommerfeltia 25: 1–90.
Söderqvist T. (1986):The ecologists: from merry naturalists to saviours of the nation: a sociologically informed narrative survey of the ecologization of Sweden 1895–1975. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Sokal R.R. &Rohlf F.J. (1995):Biometry, Ed. 3. Freeman, New York.
Stewart-Oaten A. (1995): Rules and judgments in statistics: three examples.Ecology 76: 2001–2009.
ter Braak C.J.F. &Looman C.W.N. (1986): Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian response model.Vegetatio 65: 3–11.
Trass H. &Malmer N. (1978): North European approaches to classification. In:Whittaker R.H. (ed.),Classification of plant communities, Junk, The Hague, pp. 201–245.
Tuomikoski R. (1942): Untersuchungen über die Untervegetation der Bruchmoore in Ostfinnland I. Zur Methodik der pflanzensoziologischen Systematik.Ann. Bot. Soc. Zool.-Bot. Fenn. Vanamo 17: 1–203.
Venables W.N. &Ripley B.D. (2002):Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York.
Weber T.P. (1999): A plea for a diversity of scientific styles in ecology.Oikos 84: 526–529.
Whittaker R.H. (1962): Classification of natural communities.Bot. Rev. 28: 1–239.
Whittaker R.H. (1967): Gradient analysis of vegetation.Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 42: 207–264.
Wiens J.A. (1989): Spatial scaling in ecology.Funct. Ecol. 3: 385–397.
Wilson J.B. (2003): The deductive method in community ecology.Oikos 101: 216–218.
Wood S.N. (2006):Generalized additive models. Chapman & Hall, London.
Yee T. W. (2006): Constrained additive ordination.Ecology 87: 203–213.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Økland, R.H. Wise use of statistical tools in ecological field studies. Folia Geobot 42, 123–140 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893879
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893879