The steady upward trend in the use of model selection and Bayesian methods in ecological research has made it clear that both approaches to inference are important for modern analysis of models and data. However, in teaching Bayesian methods and in working with our research colleagues, we have noticed a general dissatisfaction with the available literature on Bayesian model selection and multimodel inference. Students and researchers new to Bayesian methods quickly find that the published advice on model selection is often preferential in its treatment of options for analysis, frequently advocating one particular method above others. The recent appearance of many articles and textbooks on Bayesian modeling has provided welcome background on relevant approaches to model selection in the Bayesian framework, but most of these are either very narrowly focused in scope or inaccessible to ecologists. Moreover, the methodological details of Bayesian model selection approaches are spread thinly throughout the literature, appearing in journals from many different fields. Our aim with this guide is to condense the large body of literature on Bayesian approaches to model selection and multimodel inference and present it specifically for quantitative ecologists as neutrally as possible. We also bring to light a few important and fundamental concepts relating directly to model selection that seem to have gone unnoticed in the ecological literature. Throughout, we provide only a minimal discussion of philosophy, preferring instead to examine the breadth of approaches as well as their practical advantages and disadvantages. This guide serves as a reference for ecologists using Bayesian methods, so that they can better understand their options and can make an informed choice that is best aligned with their goals for inference.

Two foundational questions about sustainability are "How are ecosystems and the services they provide going to change in the future?" and "How do human decisions affect these trajectories?" Answering these questions requires an ability to forecast ecological processes. Unfortunately, most ecological forecasts focus on centennial-scale climate responses, therefore neither meeting the needs of near-term (daily to decadal) environmental decision-making nor allowing comparison of specific, quantitative predictions to new observational data, one of the strongest tests of scientific theory. Near-term forecasts provide the opportunity to iteratively cycle between performing analyses and updating predictions in light of new evidence. This iterative process of gaining feedback, building experience, and correcting models and methods is critical for improving forecasts. Iterative, near-term forecasting will accelerate ecological research, make it more relevant to society, and inform sustainable decision-making under high uncertainty and adaptive management. Here, we identify the immediate scientific and societal needs, opportunities, and challenges for iterative near-term ecological forecasting. Over the past decade, data volume, variety, and accessibility have greatly increased, but challenges remain in interoperability, latency, and uncertainty quantification. Similarly, ecologists have made considerable advances in applying computational, informatic, and statistical methods, but opportunities exist for improving forecast-specific theory, methods, and cyberinfrastructure. Effective forecasting will also require changes in scientific training, culture, and institutions. The need to start forecasting is now; the time for making ecology more predictive is here, and learning by doing is the fastest route to drive the science forward.

Abstract. Habitat selection is a fundamental aspect of animal ecology, the understanding of which is critical to management and conservation. Global positioning system data from animals allow fine-scale assessments of habitat selection and typically are analyzed in a useavailability framework, whereby animal locations are contrasted with random locations (the availability sample). Although most use-availability methods are in fact spatial point process models, they often are fit using logistic regression. This framework offers numerous methodological challenges, for which the literature provides little guidance. Specifically, the size and spatial extent of the availability sample influences coefficient estimates potentially causing interpretational bias. We examined the influence of availability on statistical inference through simulations and analysis of serially correlated mule deer GPS data. Bias in estimates arose from incorrectly assessing and sampling the spatial extent of availability. Spatial autocorrelation in covariates, which is common for landscape characteristics, exacerbated the error in availability sampling leading to increased bias. These results have strong implications for habitat selection analyses using GPS data, which are increasingly prevalent in the literature. We recommend that researchers assess the sensitivity of their results to their availability sample and, where bias is likely, take care with interpretations and use cross validation to assess robustness.