Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 335

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche‐based models

Open access
SEGURADO, P., ARAÚJO, M. B., KUNIN, W. E.·2006·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Spatial autocorrelation is an important source of bias in most spatial analyses. We explored the bias introduced by spatial autocorrelation on the explanatory and predictive power of species’ distribution models, and make recommendations for dealing with the problem. Analyses were based on the distribution of two species of freshwater turtle and two virtual species with simulated spatial structures within two equally sized areas located on the Iberian Peninsula. Sequential permutations of environmental variables were used to generate predictor variables that retained the spatial structure of the original variables. Univariate models of species’ distributions using generalized linear models (GLM), generalized additive models (GAM) and classification tree analysis (CTA) were fitted for each variable permutation. Variation of accuracy measures with spatial autocorrelation of the original predictor variables, as measured by Moran's I, was analysed and compared between models. The effects of systematic subsampling of the data set and the inclusion of a contagion term to deal with spatial autocorrelation in models were assessed with projections made with GLM, as it was with this method that estimates of significance based on randomizations were obtained. Spatial autocorrelation was shown to represent a serious problem for niche‐based species’ distribution models. Significance values were found to be inflated up to 90‐fold. In general, GAM and CTA performed better than GLM, although all three methods were vulnerable to the effects of spatial autocorrelation. The procedures utilized to reduce the effects of spatial autocorrelation had varying degrees of success. Subsampling was partially effective in avoiding the inflation effect, whereas the inclusion of a contagion term fully eliminated or even overcompensated for this effect. Direct estimation of probability using variable simulations was effective, yet seemed to show some residual spatial autocorrelation effects. Synthesis and applications. Given the expected inflation in the estimates of significance when analysing spatially autocorrelated variables, these need to be adjusted. The reliability and value of niche‐based distribution models for management and other applied ecology purposes can be improved if certain techniques and procedures, such as the null model approach recommended in this study, are implemented during the model‐building process.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01162.x

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 335

Metadata

Authors
SEGURADO, P., ARAÚJO, M. B., & KUNIN, W. E.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-05-12
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
433-444
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2055394180
Cited by
335
References
4
FWCI
10.14
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

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.