Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 475

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial pattern in ecological data

Open access
Perry, J. N., Liebhold, A. M., Rosenberg, M. S., Dungan, J., Miriti, M., Jakomulska, A., Citron‐Pousty, S.·2002·Ecography

Abstract

This paper aims to provide guidance to ecologists with limited experience in spatial analysis to help in their choice of techniques. It uses examples to compare methods of spatial analysis for ecological field data. A taxonomy of different data types is presented, including point‐ and area‐referenced data, with and without attributes. Spatially and non‐spatially explicit data are distinguished. The effects of sampling and other transformations that convert one data type to another are discussed; the possible loss of spatial information is considered. Techniques for analyzing spatial pattern, developed in plant ecology, animal ecology, landscape ecology, geostatistics and applied statistics are reviewed briefly and their overlap in methodology and philosophy noted. The techniques are categorized according to their output and the inferences that may be drawn from them, in a discursive style without formulae. Methods are compared for four case studies with field data covering a range of types. These are: 1) percentage cover of three shrubs along a line transect; 2) locations and volume of a desert plant in a 1 ha area; 3) a remotely‐sensed spectral index and elevation from 10 5 km 2 of a mountainous region; and 4) land cover from three rangeland types within 800 km 2 of a coastal region. Initial approaches utilize mapping, frequency distributions and variance‐mean indices. Analysis techniques we compare include: local quadrat variance, block quadrat variance, correlograms, variograms, angular correlation, directional variograms, wavelets, SADIE, nearest neighbour methods, Ripley's (t), and various landscape ecology metrics. Our advice to ecologists is to use simple visualization techniques for initial analysis, and subsequently to select methods that are appropriate for the data type and that answer their specific questions of interest. It is usually prudent to employ several different techniques.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250507.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 475

Metadata

Authors
Perry, J. N., Liebhold, A. M., Rosenberg, M. S., Dungan, J., Miriti, M., Jakomulska, A., & Citron‐Pousty, S.
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08-20
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
578-600
ISSN
  • 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0587
OpenAlex
W2115028197
Cited by
475
References
1
FWCI
47.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial pattern in ecological data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250507.x
The paper
Perry, J. N., Liebhold, A. M., Rosenberg, M. S., Dungan, J., Miriti, M., Jakomulska, A., & Citron‐Pousty, S. (2002). Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial pattern in ecological data. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250507.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.