Bayesian data analysis (BDA) is a powerful tool for making inference from ecological data, but its full potential has yet to be realized. Despite a generally positive trajectory in research surrounding model development and assessment, far too little attention has been given to prior specification. Default priors, a sub‐class of non‐informative prior distributions that are often chosen without critical thought or evaluation, are commonly used in practice. We believe the fear of being too ‘subjective’ has prevented many researchers from using any prior information in their analyses despite the fact that defending prior choice (informative or not) promotes good statistical practice. In this commentary, we provide an overview of how BDA is currently being used in a random sample of articles, discuss implications for inference if current bad practices continue, and highlight sub‐fields where knowledge about the system has improved inference and promoted good statistical practices through the careful and justified use of informative priors. We hope to inspire a renewed discussion about the use of Bayesian priors in Ecology with particular attention paid to specification and justification. We also emphasize that all priors are the result of a subjective choice, and should be discussed in that way.

Recent discussions of model selection and multimodel inference highlight a general challenge for researchers: how to convey the explanatory content of a hypothesized model or set of competing models clearly. The advice from statisticians for scientists employing multimodel inference is to develop a well‐thought‐out set of candidate models for comparison, though precise instructions for how to do that are typically not given. A coherent body of knowledge, which falls under the general term causal analysis, now exists for examining the explanatory scientific content of candidate models. Much of the literature on causal analysis has been recently developed, and we suspect may not be familiar to many ecologists. This body of knowledge comprises a set of graphical tools and axiomatic principles to support scientists in their endeavors to create “well‐formed hypotheses,” as statisticians are asking them to do. Causal analysis is complementary to methods such as structural equation modeling, which provides the means for evaluation of proposed hypotheses against data. In this paper, we summarize and illustrate a set of principles that can guide scientists in their quest to develop explanatory hypotheses for evaluation. The principles presented in this paper have the capacity to close the communication gap between statisticians, who urge scientists to develop well‐thought‐out coherent models, and scientists, who would like some practical advice for exactly how to do that.

Strategic conservation efforts for cryptic species, especially bats, are hindered by limited understanding of distribution and population trends. Integrating long‐term encounter surveys with multi‐season occupancy models provides a solution whereby inferences about changing occupancy probabilities and latent changes in abundance can be supported. When harnessed to a Bayesian inferential paradigm, this modeling framework offers flexibility for conservation programs that need to update prior model‐based understanding about at‐risk species with new data. This scenario is exemplified by a bat monitoring program in the Pacific Northwestern United States in which results from 8 years of surveys from 2003 to 2010 require updating with new data from 2016 to 2018. The new data were collected after the arrival of bat white‐nose syndrome and expansion of wind power generation, stressors expected to cause population declines in at least two vulnerable species, little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). We used multi‐season occupancy models with empirically informed prior distributions drawn from previous occupancy results (2003–2010) to assess evidence of contemporary decline in these two species. Empirically informed priors provided the bridge across the two monitoring periods and increased precision of parameter posterior distributions, but did not alter inferences relative to use of vague priors. We found evidence of region‐wide summertime decline for the hoary bat ( = 0.86 ± 0.10) since 2010, but no evidence of decline for the little brown bat ( = 1.1 ± 0.10). White‐nose syndrome was documented in the region in 2016 and may not yet have caused regional impact to the little brown bat. However, our discovery of hoary bat decline is consistent with the hypothesis that the longer duration and greater geographic extent of the wind energy stressor (collision and barotrauma) have impacted the species. These hypotheses can be evaluated and updated over time within our framework of pre–post impact monitoring and modeling. Our approach provides the foundation for a strategic evidence‐based conservation system and contributes to a growing preponderance of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that bat species are declining.

Collaborative monitoring over broad scales and levels of ecological organization can inform conservation efforts necessary to address the contemporary biodiversity crisis. An important challenge to collaborative monitoring is motivating local engagement with enough buy-in from stakeholders while providing adequate top-down direction for scientific rigor, quality control, and coordination. Collaborative monitoring must reconcile this inherent tension between top-down control and bottom-up engagement. Highly mobile and cryptic taxa, such as bats, present a particularly acute challenge. Given their scale of movement, complex life histories, and rapidly expanding threats, understanding population trends of bats requires coordinated broad-scale collaborative monitoring. The North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) reconciles top-down, bottom-up tension with a hierarchical master sample survey design, integrated data analysis, dynamic data curation, regional monitoring hubs, and knowledge delivery through web-based infrastructure. NABat supports collaborative monitoring across spatial and organizational scales and the full annual lifecycle of bats.

Occupancy models are widely applied to estimate species distributions, but few methods exist for model checking. Thorough model assessments can uncover inadequacies and allow for deeper ecological insight by exploring structure in the observed data not accounted for by a model. We introduce occupancy model residual definitions that utilize the posterior distribution of the partially latent occupancy states. Residual‐based assessments are valuable because they can target specific assumptions and identify ways to improve a model, such as adding spatial correlation or meaningful covariates. Our approach defines separate residuals for occupancy and detection, and we use simulation to examine whether missing structure for modeling detection probabilities can be distinguished from that for occupancy probabilities. In many scenarios, our residual diagnostics were able to separate inadequacies at the different model levels successfully, but we describe other situations when this may not be the case. Applying Moran's I residual diagnostics to assess models for silver‐haired (Lasionycteris noctivagans) and little brown (Myotis lucifugus) bats only provided evidence of residual spatial correlation among detections. Targeting specific model assumptions using carefully chosen residual diagnostics is valuable for any analysis, and we remove previous barriers for occupancy analyses—lack of examples and practical advice.