Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

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

Model selection and information theory in geographical ecology

Diniz‐Filho, José Alexandre Felizola, Rangel, Thiago Fernando L. V. B., Bini, Luis Mauricio·2008·Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim Although parameter estimates are not as affected by spatial autocorrelation as Type I errors, the change from classical null hypothesis significance testing to model selection under an information theoretic approach does not completely avoid problems caused by spatial autocorrelation. Here we briefly review the model selection approach based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and present a new routine for Spatial Analysis in Macroecology (SAM) software that helps establishing minimum adequate models in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Innovation We illustrate how a model selection approach based on the AIC can be used in geographical data by modelling patterns of mammal species in South America represented in a grid system (n = 383) with 2° of resolution, as a function of five environmental explanatory variables, performing an exhaustive search of minimum adequate models considering three regression methods: non‐spatial ordinary least squares (OLS), spatial eigenvector mapping and the autoregressive (lagged‐response) model. The models selected by spatial methods included a smaller number of explanatory variables than the one selected by OLS, and minimum adequate models contain different explanatory variables, although model averaging revealed a similar rank of explanatory variables. Main conclusions We stress that the AIC is sensitive to the presence of spatial autocorrelation, generating unstable and overfitted minimum adequate models to describe macroecological data based on non‐spatial OLS regression. Alternative regression techniques provided different minimum adequate models and have different uncertainty levels. Despite this, the averaged model based on Akaike weights generates consistent and robust results across different methods and may be the best approach for understanding of macroecological patterns.

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.1466-8238.2008.00395.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

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Diniz‐Filho, J. A. F., Rangel, T. F. L. V. B., & Bini, L. M.
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06-10
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
479-488
ISSN
  • 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-8238
OpenAlex
W1974326963
Cited by
225
References
4
FWCI
44.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Model selection and information theory in geographical ecology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00395.x
The paper
Diniz‐Filho, J. A. F., Rangel, T. F. L. V. B., & Bini, L. M. (2008). Model selection and information theory in geographical ecology. Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00395.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.