Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Untangling Multiple Factors in Spatial Distributions: Lilies, Gophers, and Rocks

Thomson, James D., Weiblen, George, Thomson, Barbara A., Alfaro, Satie, Legendre, Pierre·1996·Ecology

Abstract

Despite broad consensus on the power of experiments, correlational studies are still important in ecology, and may become more so as spatial studies proliferate. Conventional correlation analysis, however, (1) fundamentally conflicts with the basic ecological concept of limiting factors, and (2) ignores spatial structure in data, which can produce spuriously high correlations. Especially for field data, bivariate scattergrams often show f actor—ceiling" distributions wherein data points are widely scattered beneath an upper limit, due to the action of other factors. Although most ecological information in such a graph resides in the upper limit, standard correlation/regression does not characterize such limits. If other factors have been measured, path analysis may be useful, but otherwise, direct description of ecological ceilings is desirable. Objective methods for doing so are barely known to ecologists; we review recent proposals for statistical testing and data display. For correcting correlations for spatial patchiness of the variables, another new technique has been proposed by Clifford, Richardson, and Hemon: by reducing the effective sample size to account for the autocorrelation it allows significance tests. We discuss these issues with reference to counts of glacier lily (Erythronium grandiflorum) seedlings, vegetative plants, and flowering plants in a square grid of 256 contiguous $2 \times 2$ m quadrats in subalpine meadow in western Colorado. We also measured soil moisture, pocket gopher activity, and soil rockiness. All six variables showed significant patchiness (spatial autocorrelation) at similar scales. The abundance of flowering plants was positively correlated with rockiness and negatively correlated with moisture and gopher activity. Although limited seed dispersal suggests that seedlings should be spatially associated with flowering plants, no such correlation existed: indeed, examination of the bivariate scatterplot suggests a negative association, in the particular and restricted sense that seedlings are abundant only in quadrats where flowering is low. We hypothesize that seed germination is higher in less rocky areas of deeper, moister soil than in the rocky areas where most seeds land, but that seedlings seldom reach maturity unless they are in a rocky refuge from predation. Results from path analysis are consistent with this hypothesis. Such an ecological situation should weaken natural selection on characters enhancing seed dispersal.

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 · 10.2307/2265776

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.

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 395

Metadata

Authors
Thomson, J. D., Weiblen, G., Thomson, B. A., Alfaro, S., & Legendre, P.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-09
Volume
77
Issue
6
Pages
1698-1715
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2111738734
Cited by
395
References
0
FWCI
19.64
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: Untangling Multiple Factors in Spatial Distributions: Lilies, Gophers, and Rocks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2265776
The paper
Thomson, J. D., Weiblen, G., Thomson, B. A., Alfaro, S., & Legendre, P. (1996). Untangling Multiple Factors in Spatial Distributions: Lilies, Gophers, and Rocks. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265776

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.