Skip to main content
Log in

Using spatial gradient analysis to clarify species distributions with application to South African protea

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Typical ecological gradient analyses consider variation in the response of plants along a gradient of covariate values, but generally constrain themselves to predetermined response curves and ignore spatial autocorrelation. In this paper, we develop a formal spatial gradient analysis. We adopt the mathematical definition of gradients as directional rates of change with regard to a spatial surface. We view both the response and the covariate as spatial surfaces over a region of interest with respective gradient behavior. The gradient analysis we propose enables local comparison of these gradients. At any spatial location, we compare the behavior of the response surface with the behavior of the covariate surface to provide a novel form of sensitivity analysis. More precisely, we first fit a joint hierarchical Bayesian spatial model for a response variable and an environmental covariate. Then, after model fitting, at a given location, for each variable, we can obtain the posterior distribution of the derivative in any direction. We use these distributions to compute spatial sensitivities and angular discrepancies enabling a more detailed picture of the spatial nature of the response–covariate relationship. This methodology is illustrated using species presence probability as a response to elevation for two species of South African protea. We also offer a comparison with sensitivity analysis using geographically weighted regression. We show that the spatial gradient analysis allows for more extensive inference and provides a much richer description of the spatially varying relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin M (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157(2):101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M, Gaywood M (1994) Current problems of environmental gradients and species response curves in relation to continuum theory. J Veg Sci 5(4):473–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Gelfand A (2003) On smoothness properties of spatial processes. J Multivar Anal 84(1):85–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee S, Gelfand AE, Sirmans C (2003) Directional rates of change under spatial process models. J Am Stat Assoc 98(464):946–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitter C, Mulligan GF, Dallerba S (2007) Incorporating spatial variation in housing attribute prices: a comparison of geographically weighted regression and the spatial expansion method. J Geogr Syst 9(1):7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bivand R, Yu D, Nakaya T, Garcia-Lopez MA, Bivand MR (2014) Package spgwr. R Software Package

  • Broms KM, Johnson DS, Altwegg R, Conquest LL (2014) Spatial occupancy models applied to atlas data show southern ground hornbills strongly depend on protected areas. Ecol Appl 24(2):363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congdon P (2003) Modelling spatially varying impacts of socioeconomic predictors on mortality outcomes. J Geogr Syst 5(2):161–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2003) Speciation along environmental gradients. Nature 421(6920):259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolédec S, Chessel D, Gimaret-Carpentier C (2000) Niche separation in community analysis: a new method. Ecology 81(10):2914–2927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, M McPherson J, B Araújo M, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, G Davies R, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Daniel Kissling W et al (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30(5):609–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finley AO, Banerjee S, Carlin BP (2007) spbayes: an r package for univariate and multivariate hierarchical point-referenced spatial models. J Stat Softw 19(4):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2003) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand AE, Kim HJ, Sirmans C, Banerjee S (2003) Spatial modeling with spatially varying coefficient processes. J Am Stat Assoc 98(462):387–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand AE, Banerjee S, Gamerman D (2005) Spatial process modelling for univariate and multivariate dynamic spatial data. Environmetrics 16(5):465–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand AE, Silander JA, Wu S, Latimer A, Lewis PO, Rebelo AG, Holder M (2006) Explaining species distribution patterns through hierarchical modeling. Bayesian Anal 1(1):41–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Weiss SB, Weiss AD (1999) Glm versus cca spatial modeling of plant species distribution. Plant Ecol 143(1):107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah L, Midgley G, Hughes G, Bomhard B (2005) The view from the cape: extinction risk, protected areas, and climate change. Bioscience 55(3):231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert AH, White EP (2007) Ecological correlates of geographical range occupancy in north american birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16(6):764–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson GE (1957) Cold spring harbor symposium on quantitative biology. Conclud Remarks 22:415–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Israels AZ (1984) Redundancy analysis for qualitative variables. Psychometrika 49(3):331–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaimes NBP, Sendra JB, Delgado MG, Plata RF (2010) Exploring the driving forces behind deforestation in the state of mexico (mexico) using geographically weighted regression. Appl Geogr 30(4):576–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jammalamadaka SR, Sengupta A (2001) Topics in circular statistics, vol 5. World Scientific, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer AM, Wu S, Gelfand AE, Silander JA Jr (2006) Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. Ecol Appl 16(1):33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latimer AM, Silander J Jr, Rebelo A, Midgley G (2009) Experimental biogeography: the role of environmental gradients in high geographic diversity in cape proteaceae. Oecologia 160(1):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebreton J, Sabatier R, Banco G, Bacou A (1991) Principal component and correspondence analyses with respect to instrumental variables: an overview of their role in studies of structure-activity and species-environment relationships. In: Applied multivariate analysis in SAR and environmental studies, Springer, pp 85–114

  • Majumdar A, Munneke HJ, Gelfand AE, Banerjee S, Sirmans C (2006) Gradients in spatial response surfaces with application to urban land values. J Bus Econ Stat 24(1):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller J, Franklin J (2006) Explicitly incorporating spatial dependence in predictive vegetation models in the form of explanatory variables: a mojave desert case study. J Geogr Syst 8(4):411–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Minchin PR (2002) Continuum theory revisited: what shape are species responses along ecological gradients? Ecol Model 157(2):119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74(8):2215–2230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas JL, Stoermer EF (1997) Multivariate measure of niche overlap using canonical correspondence analysis. Ecoscience 74:240–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo A (2002) The Protea Atlas Project. Technical report. Accessed: 2002–05-12, http://protea.worldonline.co.za/default.htm

  • Schultze R (1997) South African Atlas of Agrohydrology and Climatology. Technical report, Report TT82/96, water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa

  • Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tabuti JR, Muwanika VB, Arinaitwe MZ, Ticktin T (2011) Conservation of priority woody species on farmlands: a case study from nawaikoke sub-county, uganda. Appl Geogr 31(2):456–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan A, Crovello TJ, Cronquist A (1986) Floristic regions of the world. University of California press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak CJ (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67(5):1167–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terres MA, Gelfand AE (2015) Spatial process gradients and their use in sensitivity analysis for environmental processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:150308357

  • Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Midgley G, Lavergne S, Rebelo T (2004) Relating plant traits and species distributions along bioclimatic gradients for 88 leucadendron taxa. Ecology 85(6):1688–1699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tu J (2011) Spatially varying relationships between land use and water quality across an urbanization gradient explored by geographically weighted regression. Appl Geogr 31(1):376–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhatalo J, Veneranta L, Hudd R (2012) Species distribution modeling with Gaussian processes: a case study with the youngest stages of sea spawning whitefish ( coregonus lavaretus L. sl) larvae. Ecol Model 228:49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Ni J, Tenhunen J (2005) Application of a geographically-weighted regression analysis to estimate net primary production of chinese forest ecosystems. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14(4):379–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler DC, Calder CA (2007) An assessment of coefficient accuracy in linear regression models with spatially varying coefficients. J Geogr Syst 9(2):145–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler DC, Waller LA (2009) Comparing spatially varying coefficient models: a case study examining violent crime rates and their relationships to alcohol outlets and illegal drug arrests. J Geogr Syst 11(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeilhofer P, Topanotti VP (2008) Gis and ordination techniques for evaluation of environmental impacts in informal settlements: a case study from cuiaba, central brazil. Appl Geogr 28(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank James S. Clark for useful conversations and John A. Silander for providing the data. The work of both authors was supported in part by NSF DEB 0842465 and NSF CDI 0940671.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria A. Terres.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Terres, M.A., Gelfand, A.E. Using spatial gradient analysis to clarify species distributions with application to South African protea. J Geogr Syst 17, 227–247 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-015-0215-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-015-0215-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation