PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Subhash R Lele

Publications and source records attributed to Subhash R Lele.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Sampling variability and estimates of density dependence: a composite-likelihood approach.

It is well known that sampling variability, if not properly taken into account, affects various ecologically important analyses. Statistical inference for stochastic population dynamics models is difficult when, in addition to the process error, there is also sampling error. The standard maximum-likelihood approach suffers from large computational burden. In this paper, I discuss an application of the composite-likelihood method for estimation of the parameters of the Gompertz model in the presence of sampling variability. The main advantage of the method of composite likelihood is that it reduces the computational burden substantially with little loss of statistical efficiency. Missing observations are a common problem with many ecological time series. The method of composite likelihood can accommodate missing observations in a straightforward fashion. Environmental conditions also affect the parameters of stochastic population dynamics models. This method is shown to handle such nonstationary population dynamics processes as well. Many ecological time series are short, and statistical inferences based on such short time series tend to be less precise. However, spatial replications of short time series provide an opportunity to increase the effective sample size. Application of likelihood-based methods for spatial time-series data for population dynamics models is computationally prohibitive. The method of composite likelihood is shown to have significantly less computational burden, making it possible to analyze large spatial time-series data. After discussing the methodology in general terms, I illustrate its use by analyzing a time series of counts of American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) from the Breeding Bird Survey data, San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) population abundance data, and spatial time series of Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) redds count data.

Algorithms↗

The promise of geometric morphometrics.

Nontraditional or geometric morphometric methods have found wide application in the biological sciences, especially in anthropology, a field with a strong history of measurement of biological form. Controversy has arisen over which method is the "best" for quantifying the morphological difference between forms and for making proper statistical statements about the detected differences. This paper explains that many of these arguments are superfluous to the real issues that need to be understood by those wishing to apply morphometric methods to biological data. Validity, the ability of a method to find the correct answer, is rarely discussed and often ignored. We explain why demonstration of validity is a necessary step in the evaluation of methods used in morphometrics. Focusing specifically on landmark data, we discuss the concepts of size and shape, and reiterate that since no unique definition of size exists, shape can only be recognized with reference to a chosen surrogate for size. We explain why only a limited class of information related to the morphology of an object can be known when landmark data are used. This observation has genuine consequences, as certain morphometric methods are based on models that require specific assumptions, some of which exceed what can be known from landmark data. We show that orientation of an object with reference to other objects in a sample can never be known, because this information is not included in landmark data. Consequently, a descriptor of form difference that contains information on orientation is flawed because that information does not arise from evidence within the data, but instead is a product of a chosen orientation scheme. To illustrate these points, we apply superimposition, deformation, and linear distance-based morphometric methods to the analysis of a simulated data set for which the true differences are known. This analysis demonstrates the relative efficacy of various methods to reveal the true difference between forms. Our discussion is intended to be fair, but it will be obvious to the reader that we favor a particular approach. Our bias comes from the realization that morphometric methods should operate with a definition of form and form difference consistent with the limited class of information that can be known from landmark data. Answers based on information that can be known from the data are of more use to biological inquiry than those based on unjustifiable assumptions.

Animals↗