Generalized Linear Models outperform commonly used canonical analysis in estimating spatial structure of presence/absence data.
Beta diversity
Moran’s Eigenvector Maps (MEMs)
Redundancy Analysis (RDA)
Spatial analysis
Spatial ecology
Statistical modelling
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2018
accepted:
30
07
2020
entrez:
21
9
2020
pubmed:
22
9
2020
medline:
22
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ecological communities tend to be spatially structured due to environmental gradients and/or spatially contagious processes such as growth, dispersion and species interactions. Data transformation followed by usage of algorithms such as Redundancy Analysis (RDA) is a fairly common approach in studies searching for spatial structure in ecological communities, despite recent suggestions advocating the use of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Here, we compared the performance of GLMs and RDA in describing spatial structure in ecological community composition data. We simulated realistic presence/absence data typical of many We simulated communities with known spatial structure, based on three real spatial community presence/absence datasets (one terrestrial, one marine and one freshwater). We used spatial eigenvectors as explanatory variables. We varied the number of non-zero coefficients of the spatial variables, and the spatial scales with which these coefficients were associated and then compared the performance of GLMs and RDA frameworks to correctly retrieve the spatial patterns contained in the simulated communities. We used two different methods for model selection, Forward Selection (FW) for RDA and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for GLMs. The performance of each method was assessed by scoring overall accuracy as the proportion of variables whose inclusion/exclusion status was correct, and by distinguishing which kind of error was observed for each method. We also assessed whether errors in variable selection could affect the interpretation of spatial structure. Overall GLM with AIC-based model selection (GLM/AIC) performed better than RDA/FW in selecting spatial explanatory variables, although under some simulations the methods performed similarly. In general, RDA/FW performed unpredictably, often retaining too many explanatory variables and selecting variables associated with incorrect spatial scales. The spatial scale of the pattern had a negligible effect on GLM/AIC performance but consistently affected RDA's error rates under almost all scenarios. We encourage the use of GLM/AIC for studies searching for spatial drivers of species presence/absence patterns, since this framework outperformed RDA/FW in situations most likely to be found in natural communities. It is likely that such recommendations might extend to other types of explanatory variables.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Ecological communities tend to be spatially structured due to environmental gradients and/or spatially contagious processes such as growth, dispersion and species interactions. Data transformation followed by usage of algorithms such as Redundancy Analysis (RDA) is a fairly common approach in studies searching for spatial structure in ecological communities, despite recent suggestions advocating the use of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Here, we compared the performance of GLMs and RDA in describing spatial structure in ecological community composition data. We simulated realistic presence/absence data typical of many
METHODS
METHODS
We simulated communities with known spatial structure, based on three real spatial community presence/absence datasets (one terrestrial, one marine and one freshwater). We used spatial eigenvectors as explanatory variables. We varied the number of non-zero coefficients of the spatial variables, and the spatial scales with which these coefficients were associated and then compared the performance of GLMs and RDA frameworks to correctly retrieve the spatial patterns contained in the simulated communities. We used two different methods for model selection, Forward Selection (FW) for RDA and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for GLMs. The performance of each method was assessed by scoring overall accuracy as the proportion of variables whose inclusion/exclusion status was correct, and by distinguishing which kind of error was observed for each method. We also assessed whether errors in variable selection could affect the interpretation of spatial structure.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall GLM with AIC-based model selection (GLM/AIC) performed better than RDA/FW in selecting spatial explanatory variables, although under some simulations the methods performed similarly. In general, RDA/FW performed unpredictably, often retaining too many explanatory variables and selecting variables associated with incorrect spatial scales. The spatial scale of the pattern had a negligible effect on GLM/AIC performance but consistently affected RDA's error rates under almost all scenarios.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We encourage the use of GLM/AIC for studies searching for spatial drivers of species presence/absence patterns, since this framework outperformed RDA/FW in situations most likely to be found in natural communities. It is likely that such recommendations might extend to other types of explanatory variables.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32953266
doi: 10.7717/peerj.9777
pii: 9777
pmc: PMC7474884
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e9777Informations de copyright
©2020 Carlos-Júnior et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Oecologia. 2001 Oct;129(2):271-280
pubmed: 28547606
Biometrics. 2018 Mar;74(1):362-368
pubmed: 28504821
Oecologia. 1981 Sep;50(3):296-302
pubmed: 28309044
Ecol Lett. 2017 May;20(5):561-576
pubmed: 28317296
Ecology. 2006 Jan;87(1):203-13
pubmed: 16634311
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016 Oct;92(10):
pubmed: 27402715
Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35
pubmed: 19185386
Ecology. 2018 Oct;99(10):2159-2166
pubmed: 30039615
Mol Biol Cell. 2019 Jul 1;30(14):1635-1640
pubmed: 31246543
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Aug 07;280(1768):20131201
pubmed: 23926147
Ecology. 2008 Sep;89(9):2623-32
pubmed: 18831183
Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Feb;11(1):192-6
pubmed: 15117008