Skip to main content
Log in

Predicting the spatial distribution of ground flora on large domains using a hierarchical Bayesian model

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accomodation of important sources of uncertainty in ecological models is essential to realistically predicting ecological processes. The purpose of this project is to develop a robust methodology for modeling natural processes on a landscape while accounting for the variability in a process by utilizing environmental and spatial random effects. A hierarchical Bayesian framework has allowed the simultaneous integration of these effects. This framework naturally assumes variables to be random and the posterior distribution of the model provides probabilistic information about the process. Two species in the genus Desmodium were used as examples to illustrate the utility of the model in Southeast Missouri, USA. In addition, two validation techniques were applied to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the predictions.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert J. and Chib S. 1993. Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 669–679.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Augustin N., Mugglestone M. and Buckland S. 1996. An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 339–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beers T., Dress P. and Wensel L. 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity research. Journal of Forestry 64: 691–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besag J. 1974. Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society 36: 192–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borcard D., Legendre P. and Drapeau P. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73: 1045–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire B., Jensen R. and Dey D. 1997. The Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: past, present, and future. In: Brookshire B. and Shifley S. (eds), Proceedings of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project symposium: an experimental approach to landscape research, number GTR NC-193. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp. 1–25.

  • Cherrill A., McClean C., Watson P., Tucker K., Rushton S. and Sanderson R. 1995. Predicting the distributions of plant species at the regional scale: A hierarchical matrix model. Landscape Ecology 10: 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark J., Carpenter S., Barber M., Collins S., Dobson A., Foley J. et al. 2001. Ecological Forecasts: An emerging imperative. Science 293: 657–660.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton D. 1997. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice chapter 16, Generalized linear mixed models. Chapman & Hall, New York, New York, USA, pp. 276–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cressie N. 1993. Statistics for Spatial Data: Revised Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis F. and Goetz S. 1990. Modeling vegetation pattern using digital terrain data. Ecology 4: 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day F. and Monk C. 1974. Vegetation pattern on a southern appalachian watershed. Ecology 55: 1064–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diggle P., Tawn J. and Moyeed R. 1998. Model-based geostatistics (with discussion). Applied Statistics 47: 299–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson R. 1943. Population size and geographical distribution of Clematis fremontii var. riehlii. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 30: 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst W. 1978. Discrepancy between ecological and physiological optima of plant species: a re-interpretation. Oecologica Plantarum 13: 175–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R. and Godron M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J. 1998. Predicting the distribution of shrub species in southern California from climate and terrain-derived variables. Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 733–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilks W., Richardson S. and Spiegelhalter D. (eds) 1997. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman & Hall, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason H. 1926. The individualistic concept of plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabner J. 1996. MOFEP botany: pre-treatment sampling and data management protocol. MDC unpublished report.

  • Grabner J. 2000. Ground layer vegetation in the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: Pre-treatment species composition, richness, and diversity. In: Brookshire B. and Shifley S. (eds), Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: Site history, Soils, Landforms, Woody and Herbaceous Vegetation, Down Wood, and Inventory Methods for the Landscape Experiment, number GTR NC-208. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp. 107–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabner J., Larsen D. and Kabrick J. 1997. An analysis of MOFEP ground flora: pre-treatment conditions. In: Brookshire B. and Shifley S. (eds), Proceedings of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project symposium: an experimental approach to landscape research, number GTR NC-193. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp. 169–197.

  • Guisan A., Theurillat J. and Kienast F. 1998. Predicting the potential distribution of plant species of plant species in an alpine environment. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A. and Zimmermann N. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeting J., Leecaster M. and Bowden D. 2000. An improved model for spatially correlated binary responses. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 5: 102–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooten M. 2001. Modeling and mapping the distribution of legumes in the Missouri Ozarks. Master’s Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA.

  • Justice C. and Running S. 1998. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS): land remote sensing for global change research. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 96.

  • Krystansky J. and Nigh T. 2000. Missouri Ecological Classification Project, ELT Model.

  • Legendre P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: Trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74: 1659–1673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichstein J., Simons T., Shriner S. and Franzreb K. 2002. Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecological Monographs 72: 445–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch C. 1994. Maximum likelihood variance components estimation for binary data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 89: 330–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinert D., Nigh T. and Kabrick J. 1997. Landforms, geology, and soils of the MOFEP study area. In: Brookshire B. and Shifely S. (eds), Proceedings of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project symposium: an experimental approach to landscape research, volume GTR. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp. 169–197.

  • Neter J., Kutner M., Nachtsheim C. and Wasserman W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th edn. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielou E. 1977. Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripley B. 1981. Spatial Statistics. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle J., Link W. and Sauer J. 2001. Predicting Species Occurences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy, chapter Statistical mapping of count survey data. Island Press, Covello, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shumway R. and Stoffer D. 2000. Time series analysis and its applications. Spring-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P. 1994. Autocorrelation in logistic regression modeling of species’ distributions. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 4: 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker R. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26: 1–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikle C. 2002. Spatial Cluster Modeling, chapter Spatial Modelling of Count Data: A Case Study in Modelling Breeding Bird Survey Data on Large Spatial Domains. Chapman and Hall/ CRC, pp. 199–209.

  • Wikle C., Milliff R., Nychka D. and Berliner L. 2001. Spatio-temporal hierarchical Bayesian modeling: Tropical ocean, surface winds. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96: 382–397.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zar J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann N. and Kienast F. 1999. Predictive mapping of alpine grasslands in Switzerland: species versus community approach. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 469–482.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hooten, M.B., Larsen, D.R. & Wikle, C.K. Predicting the spatial distribution of ground flora on large domains using a hierarchical Bayesian model. Landscape Ecol 18, 487–502 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026001008598

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026001008598

Navigation