Overlapping landscapes: A persistent, but misdirected concern when collecting and analyzing ecological data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A primary focus of wildlife ecology is studying how the arrangement, quality, and distribution of habitat influence wildlife populations at multiple spatial scales. A practical limitation of conducting wildlife–habitat investigations in the field, however, is that sampling points tend to be close to one another, resulting in spatial clustering. Consequently, when ecologists seek to quantify the effects of environmental predictors surrounding their sampling points, they encounter the issue of using landscapes that are partially or completely overlapping. A presumed problem of overlapping landscapes is that data generated from these landscapes, when used as predictors in statistical modeling, might violate the assumption of independence. However, the independence of error is the critical assumption, not the independence of predictor variables. Nonetheless, many researchers strive to avoid such overlaps through sampling design or alternative analytical procedures and specialized software programs have been created to assist with this. We present theoretical arguments and empirical evidence showing that changing the amount of overlap does not alter the degree of spatial autocorrelation. Using data derived from 2 broad‐scaled avian monitoring programs, we quantified the relationship between forest cover and bird abundance and occurrence at multiple landscapes ranging from 100 m to 24 km across. We found no clear evidence that increasing overlap of landscapes increased spatial autocorrelation in model residuals. Our results demonstrate that the concern of overlapping landscapes as a potential cause of violation of spatial independency among sampling units is misdirected and represents an oversimplification of the statistical and ecological issues surrounding spatial autocorrelation. Overlapping landscapes and spatial autocorrelation are separate issues in the modeling of wildlife populations and their habitats; non‐overlapping landscapes do not ensure spatial independency and overlapping landscapes do not necessarily lead to greater spatial autocorrelation in model errors. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.231 | 0.438 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".