Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution

GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution Despite the variety of statistical methods available for static modeling of plant distribution, few studies directly compare methods on a common data set. In this paper, the predictive power of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) versus Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) models of plant distribution in the Spring Mountains of Nevada, USA, are compared. Results show that GLM models give better predictions than CCA models because a species-specific subset of explanatory variables can be selected in GLM, while in CCA, all species are modeled using the same set of composite environmental variables (axes). Although both techniques can be readily ported to a Geographical Information System (GIS), CCA models are more readily implemented for many species at once. Predictions from both techniques rank the species models in the same order of quality; i.e. a species whose distribution is well modeled by GLM is also well modeled by CCA and vice-versa. In both cases, species for which model predictions have the poorest accuracy are either disturbance or fire related, or species for which too few observations were available to calibrate and evaluate the model. Each technique has its advantages and drawbacks. In general GLM will provide better species specific-models, but CCA will provide a broader overview of multiple species, diversity, and plant communities. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Plant Ecology Springer Journals

GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution

Plant Ecology , Volume 143 (1) – Sep 28, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/glm-versus-cca-spatial-modeling-of-plant-species-distribution-0O4pmPNMKh

References (40)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Life Sciences; Plant Sciences
ISSN
1385-0237
eISSN
1573-5052
DOI
10.1023/A:1009841519580
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Despite the variety of statistical methods available for static modeling of plant distribution, few studies directly compare methods on a common data set. In this paper, the predictive power of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) versus Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) models of plant distribution in the Spring Mountains of Nevada, USA, are compared. Results show that GLM models give better predictions than CCA models because a species-specific subset of explanatory variables can be selected in GLM, while in CCA, all species are modeled using the same set of composite environmental variables (axes). Although both techniques can be readily ported to a Geographical Information System (GIS), CCA models are more readily implemented for many species at once. Predictions from both techniques rank the species models in the same order of quality; i.e. a species whose distribution is well modeled by GLM is also well modeled by CCA and vice-versa. In both cases, species for which model predictions have the poorest accuracy are either disturbance or fire related, or species for which too few observations were available to calibrate and evaluate the model. Each technique has its advantages and drawbacks. In general GLM will provide better species specific-models, but CCA will provide a broader overview of multiple species, diversity, and plant communities.

Journal

Plant EcologySpringer Journals

Published: Sep 28, 2004

There are no references for this article.