, Volume 83, Issue 1–2, pp 209–222 | Cite as

Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology

  • Marie-Josée Fortin
  • Pierre Drapeau
  • Pierre Legendre


Using spatial analysis methods such as spatial autocorrelation coefficients (Moran's I and Geary's c) and kriging, we compare the capacity of different sampling designs and sample sizes to detect the spatial structure of a sugar-maple (Acer saccharum L.) tree density data set gathered from a secondary growth forest of southwestern Québec. Three different types of subsampling designs (random, systematic and systematic-cluster) with small sample sizes (50 and 64 points), obtained from this larger data set (200 points), are evaluated. The sensitivity of the spatial methods in the detection and the reconstruction of spatial patterns following the application of the various subsampling designs is discussed. We find that the type of sampling design plays an important role in the capacity of autocorrelation coefficients to detect significant spatial autocorrelation, and in the ability to accurately reconstruct spatial patterns by kriging. Sampling designs that contain varying sampling steps, like random and systematic-cluster designs, seem more capable of detecting spatial structures than a systematic design.


Kriging Pattern analysis Reliability Sampling theory 



Unweighted Pair-Group Method using Arithmetic Averages


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BoehmB.W. 1967. Tabular representation of multivariate functions-with applications to topographic modelling. Report RM-4636-PR, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.Google Scholar
  2. BouchardA., BergeronY., CamiréC., GangloffP. & GariépyM. 1985. Proposition d'une méthodologie d'inventaire et de cartographie écologique: le cas de la MRC du Haut-Saint-Laurent. Cah. Géogr. Qué. 29: 79–95.Google Scholar
  3. Bouchon, J. 1974. Utilization of regionalized variables in forest inventories. IUFRO and SAF Meeting, June 20–26, Syracuse, New York.Google Scholar
  4. BouxinG. & GauthierN. 1982. Pattern analysis in Belgian limestone grasslands. Vegetatio 49: 65–83.Google Scholar
  5. BurroughP.A. 1987. Spatial aspects of ecological data. In: JongmanR.H.G., ter BraakC.J.F. & vanTongerenO.F.R. (eds), Data analysis in community and landscape ecology, pp. 213–251. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  6. CliffA.D. & OrdJ.K. 1981. Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion Limited, London.Google Scholar
  7. CochranW.G. 1977. Sampling techniques, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  8. DavidM. 1977. Geostatistical ore reserve estimation. Developments in Geomathematics, 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Fortin, M.-J. 1985. Analyse spatiale de la répartition des phénomènes écologiques: méthodes d'analyse spatiale, théorie de l'échantillonnage. Mémoire de Maîtrise ès Sciences, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  10. GearyR.C. 1954. The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. Incorpor. Statist. 5: 115–145.Google Scholar
  11. GloaguenJ.C. & GauthierN. 1981. Pattern development of the vegetation during colonization of a burnt heathland in Brittany (France). Vegetatio 46: 167–176.Google Scholar
  12. GreenR.H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Greig-SmithP. 1952. The use of random and contiguous quadrats in the study of the structure of plant communities. Ann. Bot. 16: 293–316.Google Scholar
  14. Greig-SmithP. 1964. Quantitative plant ecology, 2nd ed. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
  15. Greig-SmithP. 1979. Pattern in vegetation. J. Ecol. 67: 755–779.Google Scholar
  16. JournelA.G. & HuijbregtsC. 1978. Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  17. JumarsP.A. 1978. Spatial autocorrelation with RUM (Remote Underwater Manipulator): vertical and horizontal structure of a bathyal community. Deep-Sea Research 25: 589–604.Google Scholar
  18. LegendreL. & LegendreP. 1984. Écologie numérique. 2ième ed. Tome 2: La structure des données écologiques. Masson, Paris et les Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  19. Legendre, P. 1985. The R package for multivariate data analysis. Département de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  20. LegendreP. & FortinM.-J. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80: 107–138.Google Scholar
  21. LegendreP. & TroussellierM. 1988. Aquatic heterotrophic bacteria: modeling in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33: 1055–1067.Google Scholar
  22. Legendre, P., Troussellier, M., Jarry, V. & Fortin, M.-J. 1989. Design for simultaneous sampling of ecological variables: from concepts to numerical solutions. Oikos (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Marbeau, J.-P. 1976. Géostatique forestière, état actuel et développements nouveaux, pour l'aménagement en forêt tropicale. Thèse de Doctorat, École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, Centre de Géostatique et de Morphologie Mathématique, Fontainebleau.Google Scholar
  24. MatheronG. 1973. The intrinsic random functions and their applications. Adv. Appl. Prob. 5: 439–468.Google Scholar
  25. McBratneyA.B. & WebsterR. 1986. Choosing functions for semi-variograms of soil properties and fitting them to sampling estimates. J. Soil Sci. 37: 617–639.Google Scholar
  26. McBratneyA.B., WebsterR. & BurgessT.M. 1981. The design of optimal sampling schemes for local estimation and mapping of regionalized variables. I. Theory and methods. Comp. Geosci. 7: 331–334.Google Scholar
  27. McCallJr.C.H. 1982. Sampling and statistics handbook for research. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  28. MinchinP.R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69: 89–107.Google Scholar
  29. MohlerC.L. 1981. Effects of sample distribution along gradients on eigenvector ordination. Vegetatio 45: 141–145.Google Scholar
  30. MohlerC.L. 1983. Effect of sampling pattern on estimation of species distribution along gradients. Vegetatio 54: 97–102.Google Scholar
  31. MoranP.A.P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37: 17–23.Google Scholar
  32. PodaniJ. 1987. Analysis of mapped and simulated vegetation patterns by means of computerized sampling techniques. Acta Bot. Hung. 30: 403–425.Google Scholar
  33. PodaniJ. 1987. Computerized sampling in vegetation studies. Coenoses 2: 9–18.Google Scholar
  34. OdenN.L. 1984. Assessing the significance of a spatial correlogram. Geogr. Anal. 16: 1–16.Google Scholar
  35. OliverM.A. & WebsterR. 1986. Combining nested and linear sampling for determining the scale and form of spatial variation of regionalized variables. Geogr. Anal. 18: 227–242.Google Scholar
  36. RenshawE. & FordE.D. 1984. The description of spatial pattern using two-dimensional spectral analysis. Vegetatio 56: 75–85.Google Scholar
  37. SakaiA.K. & OdenN.L. 1983. Spatial pattern of sex expression in silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.): Morisita's index and spatial autocorrelation. Am. Nat. 122: 489–508.Google Scholar
  38. ScherrerB. 1982. Techniques de sondage en écologie. In: FrontierS. (ed.), Stratégies d'échantillonnage en écologie. Collection d'Écologie, 17, pp. 63–162. Masson, Paris et les Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
  39. ScherrerB. 1984. Biostatistique. Gaëtan Morin Editeur, Chicoutimi, Québec.Google Scholar
  40. SokalR.R. 1979. Ecological parameters inferred from spatial correlograms. In: PatilG.P. & RosenzweigM.L. (eds), Contemporary quantitative ecology and related ecometrics. Statistical Ecology Series, Vol. 12, pp. 167–196. Int. Co-operat. Publi. House, Fairland, M.D.Google Scholar
  41. SokalR.R. 1986. Spatial data analysis and historical processes. In: DidayE. et al. (eds), Data analysis and informatics, IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Data Analysis and Informatics, pp. 29–43. Versailles, France, 1985. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. SokalR.R. & MenozziP. 1982. Spatial autocorrelation of HLA frequencies in Europe support demic diffusion of early farmers. Am. Nat. 119: 1–17.Google Scholar
  43. SokalR.R. & OdenN.L. 1978. Spatial autocorrelation in biology. 1. Methodology. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 10: 199–228.Google Scholar
  44. SokalR.R. & ThomsonJ.D. 1987. Applications of spatial autocorrelation in ecology. In: LegendreP. & LegendreL. (eds), Developments in numerical ecology. NATO ASI Series, Vol. G 14, pp. 431–466. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  45. UptonG.J.G. & FingletonB. 1985. Spatial data analysis by example. Vol. 1: Point pattern and quantitative data. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  46. WebsterR. & BurgessT.M. 1984. Sampling and bulking strategies for estimating soil properties in small regions. J. Soil. Sci. 35: 127–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Josée Fortin
    • 1
  • Pierre Drapeau
    • 2
  • Pierre Legendre
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Département de sciences biologiquesUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations