You have free access to this content

Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review

  1. Carsten F. Dormann,
  2. Jana M. McPherson,
  3. Miguel B. Araújo,
  4. Roger Bivand,
  5. Janine Bolliger,
  6. Gudrun Carl,
  7. Richard G. Davies,
  8. Alexandre Hirzel,
  9. Walter Jetz,
  10. W. Daniel Kissling,
  11. Ingolf Kühn,
  12. Ralf Ohlemüller,
  13. Pedro R. Peres-Neto,
  14. Björn Reineking,
  15. Boris Schröder,
  16. Frank M. Schurr,
  17. Robert Wilson

Article first published online: 27 SEP 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x

Issue

Ecography

Ecography

Volume 30, Issue 5, pages 609–628, October 2007

Additional Information

How to Cite

F. Dormann, C., M. McPherson, J., B. Araújo, M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., G. Davies, R., Hirzel, A., Jetz, W., Daniel Kissling, W., Kühn, I., Ohlemüller, R., R. Peres-Neto, P., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., M. Schurr, F. and Wilson, R. (2007), Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography, 30: 609–628. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x

Author Information

*C. F. Dormann (carsten.dormann@ufz.de), Dept of Computational Landscape Ecology, UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstr. 15, DE-04318 Leipzig, Germany. – J. M. McPherson, Dept of Biology, Dalhousie Univ., 1355 Oxford Street HAlifax NS, B3H 4J1 Canada. – M. B. Araújo, Dept de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, C/ Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, ES-28006 Madrid, Spain, and Centre for Macroecology, Inst. of Biology, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. – R. Bivand, Economic Geography Section, Dept of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Helleveien 30, NO-5045 Bergen, Norway. – J. Bolliger, Swiss Federal Research Inst. WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland. – G. Carl and I. Kühn, Dept of Community Ecology (BZF), UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, DE-06120 Halle, Germany, and Virtual Inst. Macroecology, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, DE-06120 Halle, Germany. – R. G. Davies, Biodiversity and Macroecology Group, Dept of Animal and Plant Sciences, Univ. of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, U.K. – A. Hirzel, Ecology and Evolution Dept, Univ. de Lausanne, Biophore Building, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. – W. Jetz, Ecology Behavior and Evolution Section, Div. of Biological Sciences, Univ. of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0116, La Jolla, CA 92093-0116, USA. – W. D. Kissling, Community and Macroecology Group, Inst. of Zoology, Dept of Ecology, Johannes Gutenberg Univ. of Mainz, DE-55099 Mainz, Germany, and Virtual Inst. Macroecology, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, DE-06120 Halle, Germany. – R. Ohlemüller, Dept of Biology, Univ. of York, PO Box 373, York YO10 5YW, U.K. – P. R. Peres-Neto, Dept of Biology, Univ. of Regina, SK, S4S 0A2 Canada, present address: Dept of Biological Sciences, Univ. of Quebec at Montreal, CP 8888, Succ. Centre Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada. – B. Reineking, Forest Ecology, ETH Zurich CHN G 75.3, Universitätstr. 16, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland. – B. Schröder, Inst. for Geoecology, Univ. of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, DE-14476 Potsdam, Germany. – F. M. Schurr, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Inst. of Biochemistry and Biology, Univ. of Potsdam, Maulbeerallee 2, DE-14469 Potsdam, Germany. – R. Wilson, Área de Biodiversidad y Conservación, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, Univ. Rey Juan Carlos, Tulipán s/n, Móstoles, ES-28933 Madrid, Spain.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 27 SEP 2007
  2. Article first published online: 27 SEP 2007
  3. Manuscript Accepted 3 August 2007

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (458K)

References

  • Albert, P. S. and McShane, L. M.. 1995. A generalized estimating equations approach for spatially correlated binary data: with an application to the analysis of neuroimaging data. Biometrics 51: 627–638.
  • Anon. 2005. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. – R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  • Anselin, L.. 1988. Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer.
  • Anselin, L.. 2002. Under the hood: issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricult. Econ. 17: 247–267.
    Direct Link:
  • Araújo, M. B. and Williams, P. H.. 2000. Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data. Biol. Conserv. 96: 331–345.
  • Araújo, M. B. and Rahbek, C.. 2006. How does climate Change affect biodiversity?. Science 313: 1396–1397.
  • Augustin, N. H. et al. 1996. An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 339–347.
  • Augustin, N. H. et al. 1998. The role of simulation in modelling spatially correlated data. Environmetrics 9: 175–196.
    Direct Link:
  • Augustin, N. H. et al. 2005. Analyzing the spread of beech canker. For. Sci. 51: 438–448.
  • Bai, Z. et al. 1996. Some large-scale matrix computation problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 74: 71–89.
  • Beerling, D. J. et al. 1995. Climate and the distribution of Fallopia japonica–use of an introduced species to test the predictive capacity of response surfaces. J. Veg. Sci. 6: 269–282.
    Direct Link:
  • Besag, J.. 1974. Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 36: 192–236.
  • Besag, J. et al. 1991. Bayesian image restoration with two applications in spatial statistics (with discussion). Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 43: 1–59.
  • Bivand, R. 2005. spdep: spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics and models. – R package version 0.3–17.
  • Bjørnstad, O. N. and Falck, W.. 2000. Nonparametric spatial covariance functions: estimation and testing. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 8: 53–70.
  • Borcard, D. and Legendre, P.. 2002. All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol. Modell. 153: 51–68.
  • Breslow, N. E. and Clayton, D. G.. 1993. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88: 9–25.
  • Brooks, S. P.. 2003. Bayesian computation: a statistical revolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 361: 2681–2697.
  • Brownstein, J. S. et al. 2003. A climate-based model predicts the spatial distribution of the Lyme disease vector Ixodes scapularis in the United States. Environ. Health Persp. 111: 1152–1157.
  • Brunsdon, C. et al. 1996. Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial non-stationarity. Geogr. Analys. 28: 281–298.
    Direct Link:
  • Carey, V. J. 2002. gee: generalized estimation equation solver. Ported to R by Thomas Lumley (ver. 3.13, 4.4) and Brian Ripley. – <www.r-project.org>.
  • Carl, G. and Kühn, I.. 2007a. Analyzing spatial autocorrelation in species distributions using Gaussian and logit models. Ecol Modell. 207: 159–170.
  • Carl, G. and Kühn, I. 2007b. Analyzing spatial ecological data using linear regression and wavelet analysis. – Stochast. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., in press.
  • Casella, G. and George, E. I.. 1992. Explaining the Gibbs sampler. Am. Stat. 46: 167–176.
  • Cliff, A. D. and Ord, J. K.. 1981. Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion.
  • Clifford, P. et al. 1989. Assessing the significance of the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 45: 123–134.
  • Cressie, N. A. C.. 1993. Statistics for spatial data. Wiley.
  • Dark, S. J.. 2004. The biogeography of invasive alien plants in California: an application of GIS and spatial regression analysis. Div. Distrib. 10: 1–9.
    Direct Link:
  • Davies, R. G. et al. 2006. Human impacts and the global distribution of extinction risk. Proc. R. Soc. B 273: 2127–2133.
  • Diggle, P. J. et al. 1995. Analysis of longitudinal data. Clarendon.
  • Diniz-Filho, J. A. and Bini, L. M.. 2005. Modelling geographical patterns in species richness using eigenvector-based spatial filters. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 177–185.
    Direct Link:
  • Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. et al. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52: 1247–1262.
  • Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. et al. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 53–64.
    Direct Link:
  • Dobson, A. J.. 2002. An introduction to generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall.
  • Dormann, C. F.. 2007a. Assessing the validity of autologistic regression. Ecol Modell. 207: 234–242.
  • Dormann, C. F.. 2007b. Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the analysis of species distribution data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 129–138.
    Direct Link:
  • Dormann, C. F.. 2007c. Promising the future? Global change predictions of species distributions. Basic Appl Ecol. 8: 387–397.
  • Dray, S. et al. 2006. Spatial modeling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbor matrices (PCNM). Ecol. Modell. 196: 483–493.
  • Dutilleul, P.. 1993. Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49: 305–314.
  • Elith, J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151.
    Direct Link:
  • Ferrier, S. et al. 2002. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodiv. Conserv. 11: 2275–2307.
  • Foody, G. M.. 2004. Spatial nonstationarity and scale-dependency in the relationship between species richness and environmental determinants for the sub-Saharan endemic avifauna. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13: 315–320.
    Direct Link:
  • Fortin, M. J. and Dale, M. R. T.. 2005. Spatial analysis – a guide for ecologists. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Fotheringham, A. S. et al. 2002. Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley.
  • Gavin, D. G. and Hu, F. S.. 2006. Spatial variation of climatic and non-climatic controls on species distribution: the range limit of Tsuga heterophylla. J. Biogeogr. 33: 1384–1396.
    Direct Link:
  • Gelfand, A. E. and Vounatsou, P.. 2003. Proper multivariate conditional autoregressive models for spatial data analysis. Biostatistics 4: 11–25.
  • Gelfand, A. E. et al. 2005. Modelling species diversity through species level hierarchical modelling. Appl. Stat. 54: 1–20.
  • Griffith, D. A.. 2000a. Eigenfunction properties and approximations of selected incidence matrices employed in spatial analyses. Lin. Algebra Appl. 321: 95–112.
  • Griffith, D. A.. 2000b. A linear regression solution to the spatial autocorrelation problem. J. Geogr. Syst. 2: 141–156.
  • Griffith, D. A. and Peres-Neto, P. R.. 2006. Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses in exploiting relative location information. Ecology 87: 2603–2613.
  • Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E.. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 135: 147–186.
  • Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W.. 2005. Predicting species distributions: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8: 993–1009.
    Direct Link:
  • Gumpertz, M. L. et al. 1997. Autologistic model of spatial pattern of Phytophthora epidemic in bell pepper: effects of soil variables on disease presence. J. Agricult. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2: 131–156.
  • Haining, R.. 2003. Spatial data analysis – theory and practice. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Hastie, T. J. and Tibshirani, R. J.. 1990. Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall.
  • Hawkins, B. A. et al. 2007. Red herrings revisited: spatial autocorrelation and parameter estimation in geographical ecology. Ecography 30: 375–384.
  • He, F. L. et al. 2003. Autologistic regression model for the distribution of vegetation. J. Agricult. Biol. Environ. Stat. 8: 205–222.
  • Hoeting, J. A. et al. 2000. An improved model for spatially correlated binary responses. J. Agricult. Biol. Environ. Stat. 5: 102–114.
  • Hooten, M. B. et al. 2003. Predicting the spatial distribution of ground flora on large domains using a hierarchical Bayesian model. Landscape Ecol. 18: 487–502.
  • Huffer, F. W. and Wu, H. L.. 1998. Markov chain Monte Carlo for autologistic regression models with application to the distribution of plant species. Biometrics 54: 509–524.
  • Hurlbert, S. H.. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54: 187–211.
  • Isaaks, E. H. and Shrivastava, R. M.. 1989. An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford Univ. Press.
  • Jetz, W. and Rahbek, C.. 2002. Geographic range size and determinants of avian species richness. Science 297: 1548–1551.
  • Jetz, W. et al. 2005. Local and global approaches to spatial data analysis in ecology. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 97–98.
    Direct Link:
  • Kaboli, M. et al. 2006. Avifaunal gradients in two arid zones of central Iran in relation to vegetation, climate, and topography. J. Biogeogr. 33: 133–144.
    Direct Link:
  • Kaluzny, S. P. et al. 1998. S-plus spatial stats user's manual for Windows and Unix. Springer.
  • Keitt, T. H. et al. 2002. Accounting for spatial pattern when modeling organism-environment interactions. Ecography 25: 616–625.
    Direct Link:
  • Kissling, W. D. and Carl, G. 2007. Spatial autocorrelation and the selection of simultaneous autoregressive models. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr., in press.
  • Klute, D. S. et al. 2002. Autologistic regression modeling of American woodcock habitat use with spatially dependent data. – In: Scott, J. M. et al (eds), Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 335–343.
  • Knapp, R. A. et al. 2003. Developing probabilistic models to predict amphibian site occupancy in a patchy landscape. Ecol. Appl. 13: 1069–1082.
  • Kupfer, J. A. and Farris, C. A.. 2007. Incorporating spatial non-stationarity of regression coefficients inti predictive vegetation model. Landscape Ecol. 22: 837–852.
  • Kühn, I.. 2007. Incorporating spatial autocorrelation may invert observed patterns. Div. Distrib. 13: 66–69.
  • Kühn, I. et al. 2006. Relating geographical variation in pollination types to environmental and spatial factors using novel statistical methods. New Phytol. 72: 127–139.
    Direct Link:
  • Latimer, A. M. et al. 2006. Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. Ecol. Appl. 16: 33–50.
  • Legendre, P.. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm?. Ecology 74: 1659–1673.
  • Legendre, P. and Fortin, M.-J.. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80: 107–138.
  • Legendre, P. and Legendre, L.. 1998. Numerical ecology. Elsevier.
  • Legendre, P. et al. 2002. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25: 601–615.
    Direct Link:
  • Lennon, J. J.. 2000. Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology. Ecography 23: 101–113.
  • Liang, K. Y. and Zeger, S. L.. 1986. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73: 13–22.
  • Lichstein, J. W. et al. 2002. Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol. Monogr. 72: 445–463.
  • Liebhold, A. M. and Gurevitch, J.. 2002. Integrating the statistical analysis of spatial data in ecology. Ecography 25: 553–557.
    Direct Link:
  • Link, W. A. and Barker, R. J.. 2006. Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference. Ecology 87: 2626–2635.
  • Littell, R. C. et al. 1996. SAS system for mixed lodels. SAS Publ.
  • Luoto, M. et al. 2001. Determinants of distribution and abundance in the clouded apollo butterfly: a landscape ecological approach. Ecography 24: 601–617.
  • McCullough, P. and Nelder, J. A.. 1989. Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall.
  • McPherson, J. M. and Jetz, W.. 2007. Effects of species’ ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. Ecography 30: 135–151.
  • Miller, J. et al. 2007. Incorporating spatial dependence in predictive vegetation models. Ecol. Modell. 202: 225–242.
  • Moore, J. E. and Swihart, R. K.. 2005. Modeling patch occupancy by forest rodents: incorporating detectability and spatial autocorrelation with hierarchically structured data. J. Wildl. Manage. 69: 933–949.
    Direct Link:
  • Myers, R. H. et al. 2002. Generalized linear models. Wiley.
  • Orme, C. D. L. et al. 2005. Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436: 1016–1019.
  • Osborne, P. E. et al. 2001. Modelling landscape-scale habitat use using GIS and remote sensing: a case study with great bustards. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 458–471.
    Direct Link:
  • Osborne, P. E. et al. 2007. Non-stationarity and local approaches to modelling the distributions of wildlife. – Div. Distribut., in press.
  • Palma, L. et al. 1999. The use of sighting data to analyse Iberian lynx habitat and distribution. J. Appl. Ecol. 36: 812–824.
    Direct Link:
  • Pearson, R. G. and Dawson, T. P.. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful?. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 361–371.
    Direct Link:
  • Perry, J. N. et al. 2002. Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial paterrns in ecological data. Ecography 25: 578–600.
    Direct Link:
  • Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M.. 2000. Mixed-effect models in S and S-plus. Springer.
  • Rangel, T. F. L. V. B. et al. 2006. Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 321–327.
    Direct Link:
  • Reich, R. M. et al. 2004. Predicting the location of northern goshawk nests: modeling the spatial dependency between nest locations and forest structure. Ecol. Modell. 176: 109–133.
  • Segurado, P. and Araújo, M. B.. 2004. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 31: 1555–1568.
    Direct Link:
  • Segurado, P. et al. 2006. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 433–444.
    Direct Link:
  • Smith, P. A.. 1994. Autocorrelation in logistic regression modelling of species’ distributions. Global. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 4: 47–61.
  • Sokal, R. R. and Oden, N. L.. 1978a. Spatial autocorrelation in biology. I. Methodology. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 10: 199–228.
    Direct Link:
  • Sokal, R. R. and Oden, N. L.. 1978b. Spatial autocorrelation in biology. II. Some biological implications and four applications of evolutionary and ecological interest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 10: 229–249.
    Direct Link:
  • Stephenson, C. M. et al. 2006. Modelling establishment probabilities of an exotic plant, Rhododendron ponticum, invading a heterogeneous, woodland landscape using logistic regression with spatial autocorrelation. Ecol. Modell 193: 747–758.
  • Sykes, M. T.. 2001. Modelling the potential distribution and community dynamics of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex. Loud.) in Scandinavia. For. Ecol. Manage. 141: 69–84.
  • Teterukovskiy, A. and Edenius, L.. 2003. Effective field sampling for predicting the spatial distribution of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) with help of the Gibbs sampler. Ambio 32: 568–572.
  • Thogmartin, W. E. et al. 2004. A hierarchical spatial model of avian abundance with application to Cerulean warblers. Ecol. Appl. 14: 1766–1779.
  • Tiefelsdorf, M. et al. 1999. A variance-stabilizing coding scheme for spatial link matrices. Environ. Plann. A 31: 165–180.
  • Tobler, W. R.. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr. 46: 234–240.
  • Tognelli, M. F. and Kelt, D. A.. 2004. Analysis of determinants of mammalian species richness in South America using spatial autoregressive models. Ecography 27: 427–436.
    Direct Link:
  • Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D.. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. Springer.
  • Ver Hoef, J. M. et al. 1993. Spatial models for spatial statistics: some unification. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 441–452.
    Direct Link:
  • Wall, M. M.. 2004. A close look at the spatial structure implied by the CAR and SAR models. J. Stat. Plann. Infer. 121: 311–324.
  • Waller, L. A. and Gotway, C. A.. 2004. Applied spatial statistics for public health data. Wiley.
  • Wood, S. N.. 2006. Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  • Worm, B. et al. 2005. Global patterns of predator diversity in the open oceans. Science 309: 1365–136.
  • Wu, H. L. and Huffer, F. W.. 1997. Modelling the distribution of plant species using the autologistic regression model. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 4: 49–64.
  • Yamaguchi, N. et al. 2003. Habitat preferences of feral American mink in the Upper Thames. J. Mammal. 84: 1356–1373.
  • Yan, J.. 2002. geepack: yet another package for generalized estimating equations. R News 2: 12–14.
  • Yan, J. 2004. geepack: generalized estimating equation package. – R package version 0.2–10.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (458K)