Authors
Carsten F. Dormann, Jana M. McPherson, Miguel B. Araújo, Roger Bivand, Janine Bolliger, Gudrun Carl, Richard G. Davies, Alexandre Hirzel, Walter Jetz, W Daniel Kissling, Ingolf Kühn, Ralf Ohlemüller, Pedro R. Peres‐Neto, Björn Reineking, Boris Schröder, Frank M. Schurr, Robert Wilson
Publication date
2007/10
Source
Ecography
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
609-628
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Description
Species distributional or trait data based on range map (extent‐of‐occurrence) or atlas survey data often display spatial autocorrelation, i.e. locations close to each other exhibit more similar values than those further apart. If this pattern remains present in the residuals of a statistical model based on such data, one of the key assumptions of standard statistical analyses, that residuals are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d), is violated. The violation of the assumption of i.i.d. residuals may bias parameter estimates and can increase type I error rates (falsely rejecting the null hypothesis of no effect). While this is increasingly recognised by researchers analysing species distribution data, there is, to our knowledge, no comprehensive overview of the many available spatial statistical methods to take spatial autocorrelation into account in tests of statistical significance. Here, we describe six different statistical …
Total citations
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202441113138161181204253248235267272236239210223191106
Scholar articles
CF Dormann, JM McPherson, MB Araujo, R Bivand… - Angewandte Statistik für die biologischen …, 2009
CF Dormann, JM McPherson, MB Araújo, R Bivand… - RG, Hirtel, A., Jetz, W „Kissling, WD, Kühn, I …