Paper detail

Valid auto-models for spatially autocorrelated occupancy and abundance data

Auto-logistic and related auto-models, implemented approximately as autocovariate regression, provide simple and direct modelling of spatial dependence. The autologistic model has been widely applied in ecology since Augustin, Mugglestone and Buckland (J. Appl. Ecol., 1996, 33, 339) analysed red deer census data using a hybrid estimation approach, combining maximum pseudo-likelihood estimation with Gibbs sampling of missing data. However Dormann (Ecol. Model., 2007, 207, 234) questioned the validity of auto-logistic regression, giving examples of apparent underestimation of covariate parameters in analysis of simulated "snouter" data. Dormann et al. (Ecography, 2007, 30, 609) extended this analysis to auto-Poisson and auto-normal models, reporting similar anomalies. All the above studies employ neighbourhood weighting schemes inconsistent with conditions (Besag, J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B, 1974, 36, 192) required for auto-model validity; furthermore the auto-Poisson analysis fails to exclude cooperative interactions. We show that all "snouter" anomalies are resolved by correct auto-model implementation. Re-analysis of the red deer data shows that invalid neighbourhood weightings generate only small estimation errors for the full dataset, but larger errors occur on geographic subsamples. A substantial fraction of papers applying auto-logistic regression to ecological data use these invalid weightings, which are default options in the widely used "spdep" spatial dependence package for R. Auto-logistic analyses using invalid neighbourhood weightings will be erroneous to an extent that can vary widely. These analyses can easily be corrected by using valid neighbourhood weightings available in "spdep". The hybrid estimation approach for missing data is readily adapted for valid neighbourhood weighting schemes and is implemented here in R for application to sparse presence-absence data.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.