The DOI matches its Crossref record.
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LANDSCAPES: CONCEPTS AND STATISTICS
Open accessAbstract
Species patchiness implies that nearby observations of species abundance tend to be similar or that individual conspecific organisms are more closely spaced than by random chance. This can be caused either by the positive spatial autocorrelation among the locations of individual organisms due to ecological spatial processes (e.g., species dispersal, competition for space and resources) or by spatial dependence due to (positive or negative) species responses to underlying environmental conditions. Both forms of spatial structure pose problems for statistical analysis, as spatial autocorrelation in the residuals violates the assumption of independent observations, while environmental heterogeneity restricts the comparability of replicates. In this paper, we discuss how spatial structure due to ecological spatial processes and spatial dependence affects spatial statistics, landscape metrics, and statistical modeling of the species–environment correlation. For instance, while spatial statistics can quantify spatial pattern due to an endogeneous spatial process, these methods are severely affected by landscape environmental heterogeneity. Therefore, statistical models of species response to the environment not only need to accommodate spatial structure, but need to distinguish between components due to exogeneous and endogeneous processes rather than discarding all spatial variance. To discriminate between different components of spatial structure, we suggest using (multivariate) spatial analysis of residuals or delineating the spatial realms of a stationary spatial process using boundary detection algorithms. We end by identifying conceptual and statistical challenges that need to be addressed for adequate spatial analysis of landscapes.
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
Cited by
Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions
Hoban, S., Kelley, J. L., Lotterhos, K. E., Antolin, M. F., Bradburd, G., Lowry, D. B., Poss, M. L., Reed, L. K., Storfer, A., & Whitlock, M. C. (2016) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/688018 · Cited by 876
“Knowing the dispersal ecology of the study organism can guide the optimal spatial scale, resolution, and extent of sampling (Addicott et al. 1987; Wagner and Fortin 2005; Anderson et al. 2010).”
Spatial Graphs: Principles and Applications for Habitat Connectivity
Fall, A., Fortin, M.-J., Manseau, M., & O’Brien, D. (2007) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-007-9038-7 · Cited by 256
Self-citationSpatial statistics, spatial regression, and graph theory in ecology
Fortin, M.-J., James, P. M. A., MacKenzie, A., Melles, S. J., & Rayfield, B. (2012) · Spatial Statistics · doi:10.1016/j.spasta.2012.02.004 · Cited by 107
Self-citationgflow: software for modelling circuit theory‐based connectivity at any scale
Leonard, P. B., Duffy, E. B., Baldwin, R. F., McRae, B. H., Shah, V. B., & Mohapatra, T. K. (2017) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12689 · Cited by 77
Biogeography and landscape ecology
Kent, M. (2007) · Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/0309133307079059 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, H. H., & Fortin, M.-J.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1975-1987
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144745759
- Cited by
- 452
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LANDSCAPES: CONCEPTS AND STATISTICS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-0914
- The paper
- Wagner, H. H., & Fortin, M.-J. (2005). SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LANDSCAPES: CONCEPTS AND STATISTICS. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0914
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.