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
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Life Sciences; Plant Sciences
ISSN
1385-0237
eISSN
1573-5052
D.O.I.
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

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off