Comment on “Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional

Ecography 000: 000000, 2009doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05562.x# 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation# 2009 EcographyComment on ‘‘Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in theanalysis of species distributional data: a review’’Matthew G. Betts, Lisa M. Ganio, Manuela M. P. Huso, Nicholas A. Som, Falk Huettmann,Jeff Bowman and Brendan A. WintleM. G. Betts (Matthew.Betts@oregonstate.edu), L. M. Ganio, M. M. P. Huso and N. A. Som, Dept of Forest Ecosystems and Society, OregonState Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. F. Huettmann, Biology and Wildlife Dept, Inst. of Arctic Biology, Univ. of Alaska-Fairbanks,Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000, USA. J. Bowman, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Research and Development Section, 2140East Bank Drive, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada. B. A. Wintle, School of Botany, Environmental Science, The Univ. of Melbourne,Victoria, Australia.In a recent paper, Dormann et al. (2007) (hereafter and interpretation of these models may result in misleadingDormann et al.) conducted a review of approaches to conclusions.Our critique is on three grounds. First, we show that theaccount for spatial autocorrelation in species distributionchange Dormann et al. observed in the parameter estimatemodels. As the review was the first of its kind in thebetween the autocovariate approach and the true value isecological literature it has the potential to be an importantdue to multicollinearity between environment and space.and ...