Accounting for spatial pattern when modeling organism- environment interactions

By Timothy H. Keitt, OTTAR N. Bjørnstad, Philip M. Dixon, Steve Citron-Pousty. 2002

401 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a906f6040a642f9d83c124c63160e72d954ee35c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Summer spatial distribution of cetaceans in the Strait of Gibraltar in relation to the oceanographic context (2008, neutral): “Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is vital when modelling the relations between animal distribution and the environment (Keitt et al. 2002).”
Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (2009, background): “Alternatives include a broad range of autoregressive and auto-correlation models that explicitly incorporate the spatial dependence between locations (Keitt et al., 2002; Lichstein et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2007).”
Climate change and bird phenology: a long‐term study in the Iberian Peninsula (2006, background): “2), signifies that no important spatially structured explanatory variables have been excluded (Cliff & Ord, 1981; Legendre & Legendre, 1998; Keitt et al., 2002).”
Spatial autocorrelation and the selection of simultaneous autoregressive models (2007, background): “…for decades in the statistical literature (Besag, 1974; Cliff & Ord, 1981), their application in ecology and species distribution research has been limited up to now (e.g. Jetz & Rahbek, 2002; Keitt et al. , 2002; Lichstein et al. , 2002; Dark, 2004; Tognelli & Kelt, 2004; Kissling et al. , 2007).”
Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species (2007, background): “…due to limited access of certain areas (Austin & Heyligers, 1989; Wessels et al., 1998); effects of factors not considered in the modelling process (Guisan & Zimmermann, 2000; Austin, 2002); or effects of individuals actively aggregating in space (Keitt et al., 2002; Lichstein et al., 2002).”
Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the analysis of species distribution data (2007, background): “Keitt et al. (2002) give likelihood-ratio tests for spatial dependence (significant in two of three cases), but not the deviances of the models.”
Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche‐based models (2006, methodology): “A common procedure to cancel the effect of spatial structure of species’ occurrences is to incorporate a term for SA into the analysis (Smith 1994; Augustin, Mugglestone & Buckland 1996; Araújo & Williams 2000; Keitt et al. 2002; Segurado & Araújo 2004), usually a measure of contagion that encompass”
Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models (2010, background): “Spatial autocorrelation can be captured using autologistic models (Osborne et al., 2001; Keitt et al., 2002; Lichstein et al., 2002; Segurado et al., 2006; Dormann et al., 2007).”
Testing environmental and genetic effects in the presence of spatial autocorrelation (2014, background): “Spatial autocorrelation is a well-known concern in the modelling of the distribution of species or species richness (Keitt et al. 2002, Dormann et al. 2007, Bini et al. 2009), community structure (Robertson and Freckman 1995), and distribution of phenotypic and genetic variation (Stopher et al.…”