2021
DOI: 10.1002/ecm.1447
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A critical comparison of integral projection and matrix projection models for demographic analysis

Abstract: 2021. A critical comparison of integral projection and matrix projection models for demographic analysis. Ecological Monographs 91(2):e01447.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
20
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 105 publications
2
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our selection of environmental variables used for all species imply that models constructed here for the purpose of a comparative study on demographic compensation will be different from those that might be constructed for other purposes or in studies focusing on single species. Although IPMs are increasingly used in demographic studies, their predictions have only rarely been verified (Doak et al, 2021; Ramula et al, 2009). More model validation efforts from other perspectives, for instance using (independent) presence/absence data of simulated species across environmental ranges (Schultz et al, 2022), may allow evaluating whether and when demographic models capture population performance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our selection of environmental variables used for all species imply that models constructed here for the purpose of a comparative study on demographic compensation will be different from those that might be constructed for other purposes or in studies focusing on single species. Although IPMs are increasingly used in demographic studies, their predictions have only rarely been verified (Doak et al, 2021; Ramula et al, 2009). More model validation efforts from other perspectives, for instance using (independent) presence/absence data of simulated species across environmental ranges (Schultz et al, 2022), may allow evaluating whether and when demographic models capture population performance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We constructed size‐based demographic models using continuous size‐based vital rate functions, which can be viewed either as projection matrices or integral projection models (Caswell, 2001; Doak et al, 2021; Morris & Doak, 2002). Using tree height as our size‐classifying variable (hereafter “height classes”), we created mixed linear and general linear models for growth, variance in growth, survival, probability of reproduction, and number of seeds produced given reproduction.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advent of the more versatile IPMs does not mean that MPMs must be abandoned. Doak et al (2021) compared key outputs from both approaches (population growth rate, sensitivity and elasticity patterns, life expectancy and damping ratio; some of these parameters are defined later) and found no large differences between models, especially when MPMs were built using ten or more categories. Arguments in favour of MPMs are ease of construction and interpretation.…”
Section: O N L I N E F I R S Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper we specifically concentrate on structured population models, which incorporate the change in individual demographic processes (fecundity, ontogenetic development -often referred to simply as growth-and survival, also called vital rates) in the course of the life cycle. Over the last half century, population ecologists have employed these models to record the dynamics of a wide variety of wild, threatened, invasive or economically important species (Crone et al 2011, Doak et al 2021. The growth in the number of studies is witnessed by the COMPADRE database which currently contains 8,708 matrix population models of 757 plant species from 639 publications (COMPADRE 2021).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%