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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ripley, B. D. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01615.x · Cited by 2,511
Cited by
F. Dormann, C., M. McPherson, J., B. Araújo, M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., G. Davies, R., Hirzel, A., Jetz, W., Daniel Kissling, W., et al. (2007) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x · Cited by 3,433
Rings, circles and null models for point pattern analysis in ecology.
Wiegand, T., & A. Moloney, K. (2004) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12497.x · Cited by 1,157
Groffman, P. M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Fulweiler, R. W., Gold, A. J., Morse, J. L., Stander, E. K., Tague, C., Tonitto, C., & Vidon, P. (2009) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-008-9277-5 · Cited by 677
A comparison of methods for the statistical analysis of spatial point patterns in plant ecology
Perry, G. L. W., Miller, B. P., & Enright, N. J. (2006) · Plant Ecology · doi:10.1007/s11258-006-9133-4 · Cited by 386
Linear and generalized linear mixed models
Bolker, B. M. (2015) · Ecological Statistics · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0014 · Cited by 339
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.