A systematic comparison of summary characteristics for quantifying point patterns in ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many functional summary characteristics such as Ripley's K function have been used in ecology to describe the spatial structure of point patterns to aid understanding of the underlying processes. However, their use is poorly guided in ecology because little is understood how well single summary characteristics, or a combination of them, capture the spatial structure of real world patterns. Here, we systematically tested the performance of combinations of eight summary characteristics [i.e. pair correlation function g ( r ), K ‐function K ( r ), the proportion E ( r ) of points with no neighbor at distance r , the nearest neighbor distribution function D ( r ), the spherical contact distribution H s ( r ), the k th nearest‐neighbor distribution functions D k ( r ), the mean distance nn ( k ) to the k th neighbor, and the intensity function λ( x )]. To this end we used point pattern data covering a wide range of spatial structures including simulated (stationary) as well as real, possibly non‐stationary, patterns on tree species in a tropical forest in Panamá. To measure the information contained in a given combination of summary characteristics we used simulated annealing to reconstruct the observed patterns based only on the limited information provided by this combination and assessed how well other characteristics of the observed pattern were recovered. We found that the number of summary characteristics required to capture the spatial structure of stationary patterns varied between one (for patterns with near random structures) and three (for patterns with complex cluster and superposition structures), but with a robust ranking g ( r ), D k ( r ), and H s ( r ) that was largely independent on pattern idiosyncrasies. Stationary summary characteristics [with ranking g ( r ), D k ( r ), H s ( r ), E ( r )] captured small‐ to intermediate scale properties of non‐stationary patterns, but for describing large‐scale spatial structures the intensity function was required. Our finding revealed that the current practice in ecology of using only one or two summary characteristics bears danger that essential characteristics of more complex patterns would not be detected. The technique of pattern reconstruction presented here has wide applications in ecology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".