Professionals working in biological conservation seek to understand, manage, and restore populations of native organisms using many techniques. A common approach for this discipline is using long-term data collections to inform decision making. However, several quantitative issues complicate statistical analysis of monitoring datasets and can reduce the utility of results for conservation decision making. Integrating results from multiple analyses applied to the same dataset (i.e., approaching the same biological problem using different techniques) is one way to address concerns related to field data that violate statistical assumptions. This process allows data analysts, researchers, and managers to assemble insights based on the weight of evidence. Here we tested whether three different statistical techniques [(1) multiple logistic regression on original data, (2) multiple logistic regression on standardized data (i.e., mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1), and (3) random forest analysis] identified a similar hierarchy for selecting natural and anthropogenic habitat regressors. Our examination of how environmental variables affected Plains Minnow (Hybognathus placitus), a state-threatened fish, is relevant to other taxa and locations. We gained useful information from redundancies (i.e., agreements across analyses). New directions also emerged by addressing ambiguities (i.e., disagreements among results across analyses). When multiple analyses were integrated into one ecological story, a clearer interpretation emerged. Viewing different statistical tests as facilitators that provide mutual advantages can advance the understanding and application of statistical analyses applied to non-experimental field datasets.