Red herrings revisited: spatial autocorrelation and parameter estimation in geographical ecology

There have been numerous claims in the ecological literature that spatial autocorrelation in the residuals of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models results in shifts in the partial coefficients, which bias the interpretation of factors influencing geographical patterns. We evaluate the validity of these claims using gridded species richness data for the birds of North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the ex-USSR, and Australia. We used richness in 110x110 km cells and environmental predictor variables to generate OLS and simultaneous autoregressive (SAR) multiple regression models for each region. Spatial correlograms of the residuals from each OLS model were then used to identify the minimum distance between cells necessary to avoid short-distance residual spatial autocorrelation in each data set. This distance was used to subsample cells to generate spatially independent data. The partial OLS coefficients estimated with the full dataset were then compared to the distributions of coefficients created with the subsamples. We found that OLS coefficients generated from data containing residual spatial autocorrelation were statistically indistinguishable from coefficients generated from the same data sets in which short-distance spatial autocorrelation was not present in all 22 coefficients tested. Consistent with the statistical literature on this subject, we conclude that coefficients estimated from OLS regression are not seriously affected by the presence of spatial autocorrelation in gridded geographical data. Further, shifts in coefficients that occurred when using SAR tended to be correlated with levels of uncertainty in the OLS coefficients. Thus, shifts in the relative importance of the predictors between OLS and SAR models are expected when small-scale patterns for these predictors create weaker and more unstable broad-scale coefficients. Our results indicate both that OLS regression is unbiased and that differences between spatial and nonspatial regression models should be interpreted with an explicit awareness of spatial scale.

[1]  José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho,et al.  Climate, Niche Conservatism, and the Global Bird Diversity Gradient , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[2]  W. D. Kissling,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and the selection of simultaneous autoregressive models , 2007 .

[3]  Daniel A. Griffith,et al.  Semiparametric Filtering of Spatial Autocorrelation: The Eigenvector Approach , 2007 .

[4]  C. Dormann.  Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the analysis of species distribution data , 2007 .

[5]  William B. Krohn,et al.  Importance of spatial autocorrelation in modeling bird distributions at a continental scale , 2006 .

[6]  Ingolf Kühn,et al.  Incorporating spatial autocorrelation may invert observed patterns , 2006 .

[7]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Beyond Rapoport's rule: evaluating range size patterns of New World birds in a two‐dimensional framework , 2006 .

[8]  A. Gimona,et al.  Local environmental effects and spatial effects in macroecological studies using mapped abundance classes: the case of the rook Corvus frugilegus in Scotland. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[9]  Thiago F. Rangel,et al.  Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography , 2006 .

[10]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Water links the historical and contemporary components of the Australian bird diversity gradient , 2005 .

[11]  Carol A. Gotway,et al.  Statistical Methods for Spatial Data Analysis , 2004 .

[12]  Bradford A. Hawkins,et al.  Bergmann's rule and the mammal fauna of northern North America , 2004 .

[13]  M. Tognelli,et al.  Analysis of determinants of mammalian species richness in South America using spatial autoregressive models , 2004 .

[14]  Chris Chatfield,et al.  Statistical Methods for Spatial Data Analysis , 2004 .

[15]  M. Graham.  CONFRONTING MULTICOLLINEARITY IN ECOLOGICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION , 2003 .

[16]  José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho,et al.  PRODUCTIVITY AND HISTORY AS PREDICTORS OF THE LATITUDINAL DIVERSITY GRADIENT OF TERRESTRIAL BIRDS , 2003 .

[17]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2003 .

[18]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  Ecography 25: 601 -- 615, 2002 , 2022 .

[19]  T. Simons,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology , 2002 .

[20]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Species Diversity--Scale Matters , 2002, Science.

[21]  T. Boulinier,et al.  Ecological Biogeography of Southern Ocean Islands: The Importance of Considering Spatial Issues , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[22]  G. Graves,et al.  Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Jeremy J. D. Greenwood,et al.  Bird diversity and environmental gradients in Britain: a test of the species–energy hypothesis , 2000 .

[24]  Jack J. Lennon,et al.  Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2000 .

[25]  P. Williams,et al.  Interpreting biogeographical boundaries among Afrotropical birds: spatial patterns in richness gradients and species replacement , 1999 .

[26]  J. Lawton,et al.  The geographic ranges of mammalian species in South America: spatial patterns in environmental resistance and anisotropy , 1998 .

[27]  Noel A. C. Cressie,et al.  Statistics for Spatial Data: Cressie/Statistics , 1993 .

[28]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[29]  P. Clifford,et al.  Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes , 1993 .

[30]  R. Haining.  Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences , 1990 .

[31]  David J. Currie,et al.  Large-scale biogeographical patterns of species richness of trees , 1987, Nature.

[32]  Anne Lohrli.  Chapman and Hall , 1985 .