Search for: All records

Background Ecological communities tend to be spatially structured due to environmental gradients and/or spatially contagious processes such as growth, dispersion and species interactions. Data transformation followed by usage of algorithms such as Redundancy Analysis (RDA) is a fairly common approach in studies searching for spatial structure in ecological communities, despite recent suggestions advocating the use of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Here, we compared the performance of GLMs and RDA in describing spatial structure in ecological community composition data. We simulated realistic presence/absence data typical of many β -diversity studies. For model selection we used standard methods commonly used in most studies involving RDA and GLMs. Methods We simulated communities with known spatial structure, based on three real spatial community presence/absence datasets (one terrestrial, one marine and one freshwater). We used spatial eigenvectors as explanatory variables. We varied the number of non-zero coefficients of the spatial variables, and the spatial scales with which these coefficients were associated and then compared the performance of GLMs and RDA frameworks to correctly retrieve the spatial patterns contained in the simulated communities. We used two different methods for model selection, Forward Selection (FW) for RDA and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for GLMs. The performance of each method was assessed by scoring overall accuracy as the proportion of variables whose inclusion/exclusion status was correct, and by distinguishing which kind of error was observed for each method. We also assessed whether errors in variable selection could affect the interpretation of spatial structure. Results Overall GLM with AIC-based model selection (GLM/AIC) performed better than RDA/FW in selecting spatial explanatory variables, although under some simulations the methods performed similarly. In general, RDA/FW performed unpredictably, often retaining too many explanatory variables and selecting variables associated with incorrect spatial scales. The spatial scale of the pattern had a negligible effect on GLM/AIC performance but consistently affected RDA’s error rates under almost all scenarios. Conclusion We encourage the use of GLM/AIC for studies searching for spatial drivers of species presence/absence patterns, since this framework outperformed RDA/FW in situations most likely to be found in natural communities. It is likely that such recommendations might extend to other types of explanatory variables. 

The SUMup database is a compilation of surface mass balance (SMB), subsurface temperature and density measurements from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This 2023 release contains 4 490 442 data points: 1 778 540 SMB measurements, 2 706 413 density measurements and 5 489 subsurface temperature measurements. This is respectively 1 477 132, 420 825 and 4 715 additional observations of SMB, density and temperature compared to the 2022 release. This new release provides not only snow accumulation on ice sheets, like its predecessors, but all types of SMB measurements, including from ablation areas. On the other hand, snow depth on sea ice is discontinued, but can still be found in the previous releases. The data files are provided in both CSV and NetCDF format and contain, for each measurement, the following metadata: latitude, longitude, elevation, timestamp, method, reference of the data source and, when applicable, the name of the measurement group it belongs to (core name for SMB, profile name for density, station name for temperature). Data users are encouraged to cite all the original data sources that are being used. Issues about this release as well as suggestions of datasets to be added in next releases can be done on a dedicated user forum: https://github.com/SUMup-database/SUMup-data-suggestion/issues. Example scripts to use the SUMup 2023 files are made available on our script repository: https://github.com/SUMup-database/SUMup-example-scripts.