Abstract
Generalized linear models (GLMs) are an integral tool in ecology. Like general linear models, GLMs assume linearity, which entails a linear relationship between independent and dependent variables. However, because this assumption acts on the link rather than the natural scale in GLMs, it is more easily overlooked. We reviewed recent ecological literature to quantify the use of linearity. We then used two case studies to confront the linearity assumption via two GLMs fit to empirical data. In the first case study we compared GLMs to generalized additive models (GAMs) fit to mammal relative abundance data. In the second case study we tested for linearity in occupancy models using passerine point-count data. We reviewed 162 studies published in the last 5 years in five leading ecology journals and found less than 15% reported testing for linearity. These studies used transformations and GAMs more often than they reported a linearity test. In the first case study, GAMs strongly out-performed GLMs as measured by AIC in modeling relative abundance, and GAMs helped uncover nonlinear responses of carnivore species to landscape development. In the second case study, 14% of species-specific models failed a formal statistical test for linearity. We also found that differences between linear and nonlinear (i.e., those with a transformed independent variable) model predictions were similar for some species but not for others, with implications for inference and conservation decision-making. Our review suggests that reporting tests for linearity are rare in recent studies employing GLMs. Our case studies show how formally comparing models that allow for nonlinear relationships between the dependent and independent variables has the potential to impact inference, generate new hypotheses, and alter conservation implications. We conclude by suggesting that ecological studies report tests for linearity and use formal methods to address linearity assumption violations in GLMs.