Quantifying individual variation in reaction norms: Mind the residual

Jip J.C. Ramakers*, Marcel E. Visser, Phillip Gienapp

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity is a central topic in ecology and evolution. Individuals may differ in the degree of plasticity (individual-by-environment interaction (I × E)), which has implications for the capacity of populations to respond to selection. Random regression models (RRMs) are a popular tool to study I × E in behavioural or life-history traits, yet evidence for I × E is mixed, differing between species, populations, and even between studies on the same population. One important source of discrepancies between studies is the treatment of heterogeneity in residual variance (heteroscedasticity). To date, there seems to be no collective awareness among ecologists of its influence on the estimation of I × E or a consensus on how to best model it. We performed RRMs with differing residual variance structures on simulated data with varying degrees of heteroscedasticity and plasticity, sample size and environmental variability to test how RRMs would perform under each scenario. The residual structure in the RRMs affected the precision of estimates of simulated I × E as well as statistical power, with substantial lack of precision and high false-positive rates when sample size, environmental variability and plasticity were small. We show that model comparison using information criteria can be used to choose among residual structures and reinforce this point by analysis of real data of two study populations of great tits (Parus major). We provide guidelines that can be used by biologists studying I × E that, ultimately, should lead to a reduction in bias in the literature concerning the statistical evidence and the reported magnitude of variation in plasticity.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Evolutionary Biology
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 20 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

reaction norm
individual variation
plasticity
heteroskedasticity
Parus major
phenotypic plasticity
ecologists
life history trait
biologists
life history
ecology
sampling

Keywords

  • heteroscedasticity
  • mixed models
  • phenotypic plasticity
  • random regression
  • random slope

Cite this

@article{8dabe4ad7db848618f19be8a93695fa7,
title = "Quantifying individual variation in reaction norms: Mind the residual",
abstract = "Phenotypic plasticity is a central topic in ecology and evolution. Individuals may differ in the degree of plasticity (individual-by-environment interaction (I × E)), which has implications for the capacity of populations to respond to selection. Random regression models (RRMs) are a popular tool to study I × E in behavioural or life-history traits, yet evidence for I × E is mixed, differing between species, populations, and even between studies on the same population. One important source of discrepancies between studies is the treatment of heterogeneity in residual variance (heteroscedasticity). To date, there seems to be no collective awareness among ecologists of its influence on the estimation of I × E or a consensus on how to best model it. We performed RRMs with differing residual variance structures on simulated data with varying degrees of heteroscedasticity and plasticity, sample size and environmental variability to test how RRMs would perform under each scenario. The residual structure in the RRMs affected the precision of estimates of simulated I × E as well as statistical power, with substantial lack of precision and high false-positive rates when sample size, environmental variability and plasticity were small. We show that model comparison using information criteria can be used to choose among residual structures and reinforce this point by analysis of real data of two study populations of great tits (Parus major). We provide guidelines that can be used by biologists studying I × E that, ultimately, should lead to a reduction in bias in the literature concerning the statistical evidence and the reported magnitude of variation in plasticity.",
keywords = "heteroscedasticity, mixed models, phenotypic plasticity, random regression, random slope",
author = "Ramakers, {Jip J.C.} and Visser, {Marcel E.} and Phillip Gienapp",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1111/jeb.13571",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Evolutionary Biology",
issn = "1010-061X",
publisher = "Wiley",

}

Quantifying individual variation in reaction norms: Mind the residual. / Ramakers, Jip J.C.; Visser, Marcel E.; Gienapp, Phillip.

In: Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20.11.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantifying individual variation in reaction norms: Mind the residual

AU - Ramakers, Jip J.C.

AU - Visser, Marcel E.

AU - Gienapp, Phillip

PY - 2019/11/20

Y1 - 2019/11/20

N2 - Phenotypic plasticity is a central topic in ecology and evolution. Individuals may differ in the degree of plasticity (individual-by-environment interaction (I × E)), which has implications for the capacity of populations to respond to selection. Random regression models (RRMs) are a popular tool to study I × E in behavioural or life-history traits, yet evidence for I × E is mixed, differing between species, populations, and even between studies on the same population. One important source of discrepancies between studies is the treatment of heterogeneity in residual variance (heteroscedasticity). To date, there seems to be no collective awareness among ecologists of its influence on the estimation of I × E or a consensus on how to best model it. We performed RRMs with differing residual variance structures on simulated data with varying degrees of heteroscedasticity and plasticity, sample size and environmental variability to test how RRMs would perform under each scenario. The residual structure in the RRMs affected the precision of estimates of simulated I × E as well as statistical power, with substantial lack of precision and high false-positive rates when sample size, environmental variability and plasticity were small. We show that model comparison using information criteria can be used to choose among residual structures and reinforce this point by analysis of real data of two study populations of great tits (Parus major). We provide guidelines that can be used by biologists studying I × E that, ultimately, should lead to a reduction in bias in the literature concerning the statistical evidence and the reported magnitude of variation in plasticity.

AB - Phenotypic plasticity is a central topic in ecology and evolution. Individuals may differ in the degree of plasticity (individual-by-environment interaction (I × E)), which has implications for the capacity of populations to respond to selection. Random regression models (RRMs) are a popular tool to study I × E in behavioural or life-history traits, yet evidence for I × E is mixed, differing between species, populations, and even between studies on the same population. One important source of discrepancies between studies is the treatment of heterogeneity in residual variance (heteroscedasticity). To date, there seems to be no collective awareness among ecologists of its influence on the estimation of I × E or a consensus on how to best model it. We performed RRMs with differing residual variance structures on simulated data with varying degrees of heteroscedasticity and plasticity, sample size and environmental variability to test how RRMs would perform under each scenario. The residual structure in the RRMs affected the precision of estimates of simulated I × E as well as statistical power, with substantial lack of precision and high false-positive rates when sample size, environmental variability and plasticity were small. We show that model comparison using information criteria can be used to choose among residual structures and reinforce this point by analysis of real data of two study populations of great tits (Parus major). We provide guidelines that can be used by biologists studying I × E that, ultimately, should lead to a reduction in bias in the literature concerning the statistical evidence and the reported magnitude of variation in plasticity.

KW - heteroscedasticity

KW - mixed models

KW - phenotypic plasticity

KW - random regression

KW - random slope

U2 - 10.1111/jeb.13571

DO - 10.1111/jeb.13571

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Evolutionary Biology

JF - Journal of Evolutionary Biology

SN - 1010-061X

ER -