Biological systems, at all scales of organisation from nucleic acids to ecosystems, are inherently complex and variable. Biologists therefore use statistical analyses to detect signal among this systemic noise. Statistical models infer trends, find functional relationships and detect differences that exist among groups or are caused ...
Biological systems, at all scales of organisation from nucleic acids to ecosystems, are inherently complex and variable. Biologists therefore use statistical analyses to detect signal among this systemic noise. Statistical models infer trends, find functional relationships and detect differences that exist among groups or are caused by experimental manipulations. They also use statistical relationships to help predict uncertain futures. All branches of the biological sciences now embrace the possibilities of mixed-effects modelling and its flexible toolkit for partitioning noise and signal. The mixed-effects model is not, however, a panacea for poor experimental design, and should be used with caution when inferring or deducing the importance of both fixed and random effects. Here we describe a selection of the perils and pitfalls that are widespread in the biological literature, but can be avoided by careful reflection, modelling and model-checking. We focus on situations where incautious modelling risks exposure to these pitfalls and the drawing of incorrect conclusions. Our stance is that statements of significance, information content or credibility all have their place in biological research, as long as these statements are cautious and well-informed by checks on the validity of assumptions. Our intention is to reveal potential perils and pitfalls in mixed model estimation so that researchers can use these powerful approaches with greater awareness and confidence. Our examples are ecological, but translate easily to all branches of biology.
