2010
DOI: 10.1890/09-1359.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial autocorrelation and the scaling of species–environment relationships

Abstract: Issues of residual spatial autocorrelation (RSA) and spatial scale are critical to the study of species-environment relationships, because RSA invalidates many statistical procedures, while the scale of analysis affects the quantification of these relationships. Although these issues independently are widely covered in the literature, only sparse attention is given to their integration. This paper focuses on the interplay between RSA and the spatial scaling of species-environment relationships. Using a hypothe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
135
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
2
135
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Model validation ideally requires an independent testset but when the two sets of variables (Figs. 1 and 2) being considered (geographical distributions of taxa and broadscale climatic variables) show strong spatial auto-correlation (Beale et al 2010;de Knegt et al 2010), it is impossible to test a MCR model with an independent test-set (Telford & Birks 2005;) because the geographical position of any test-set used will fall within the geographical range of the primary biological data used in the model (Araújo et al 2005a). To address this issue in an MCR approach applied to beetle data, Bray et al (2006) proposed "to avoid circular reasoning in these experiments (to evaluate the accuracy and sensitivity of the MCR method), care was taken to use only samples of modern beetles that have not previously been used in the construction of the primary MCR database".…”
Section: Strengths and Weaknessesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Model validation ideally requires an independent testset but when the two sets of variables (Figs. 1 and 2) being considered (geographical distributions of taxa and broadscale climatic variables) show strong spatial auto-correlation (Beale et al 2010;de Knegt et al 2010), it is impossible to test a MCR model with an independent test-set (Telford & Birks 2005;) because the geographical position of any test-set used will fall within the geographical range of the primary biological data used in the model (Araújo et al 2005a). To address this issue in an MCR approach applied to beetle data, Bray et al (2006) proposed "to avoid circular reasoning in these experiments (to evaluate the accuracy and sensitivity of the MCR method), care was taken to use only samples of modern beetles that have not previously been used in the construction of the primary MCR database".…”
Section: Strengths and Weaknessesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in palaeoecology, there is currently a lively debate about the need or otherwise to account for the effects of spatial autocorrelation (e.g. Lennon 2000; Betts et al 2006Betts et al , 2009Beale et al 2007Beale et al , 2010Hawkins et al 2007;Bini et al 2009;Dormann 2009;de Knegt et al 2010) in bioclimate-envelope modelling and other forms of species distribution modelling.…”
Section: Spatial Autocorrelationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In conditions of globalization, the informational space acts as: 1) an action system, 2) a system of communications, which are reproduced in the course of constant communicative processes (Knegt et al, 2010). "Ethno-linguo-functional unbalance of human psychic elements predetermines his psychic deadaptation to proper internal and external environment" (Karabulatova & Polivara, 2013, p. 823).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the dominant approach to species distribution modeling that advocates accounting for residual SAC using an autocovariate or removing it using spatial filters, thus overlooking the opportunity to investigate the origins of the spatial dependence (Van Teeffelen and Ovaskainen 2007, De Knegt et al 2010, Miller and Franklin 2010.…”
Section: Davis Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%