Cross-scale contradictions in ecological relationships
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Dixon Hamil, KA., Iannone III, B.V., Huang, W.K. et al. Landscape Ecol (2016) 31: 7. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0288-z
- 637 Downloads
Not accounting for spatial heterogeneity in ecological analyses can cause modeled relationships to vary across spatial scales, specifically different levels of spatial resolution. These varying results hinder both the utility of data collected at one spatial scale for analyses at others and the determination of underlying processes.
To briefly review existing methods for analyzing data collected at multiple scales, highlight the effects of spatial heterogeneity on the utility of these methods, and to illustrate a practical statistical method to account for the sources of spatial heterogeneity when they are unknown.
Using simulated examples, we show how not accounting for the drivers of spatial heterogeneity in statistical models can cause contradictory findings regarding relationship direction across spatial scales. We then show how mixed effects models can remedy this multiscaling issue.
Ignoring sources of spatial heterogeneity in statistical models with coarse spatial scales produced contradictory results to the true underlying relationship. Treating drivers of spatial heterogeneity as random effects in a mixed effects model, however, allowed us to uncover this true relationship.
Mixed effects models is advantageous as it is not always necessary to know the influential explanatory variables that cause spatial heterogeneity and no additional data are required. Furthermore, this approach is well documented, can be applied to data having various distribution types, and is easily executable using multiple statistical packages.
KeywordsEcological fallacy MAUP Missing variables Multiscale Mixed effects models Spatial transmutation
|Funder Name||Grant Number||Funding Note|
|NSF Macrosystems Biology|