Cargando…

Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks

Scientists need appropriate spatial‐statistical models to account for the unique features of stream network data. Recent advances provide a growing methodological toolbox for modelling these data, but general‐purpose statistical software has only recently emerged, with little information about when...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rushworth, A. M., Peterson, E. E., Ver Hoef, J. M., Bowman, A. W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/env.2340
_version_ 1782446758728564736
author Rushworth, A. M.
Peterson, E. E.
Ver Hoef, J. M.
Bowman, A. W.
author_facet Rushworth, A. M.
Peterson, E. E.
Ver Hoef, J. M.
Bowman, A. W.
author_sort Rushworth, A. M.
collection PubMed
description Scientists need appropriate spatial‐statistical models to account for the unique features of stream network data. Recent advances provide a growing methodological toolbox for modelling these data, but general‐purpose statistical software has only recently emerged, with little information about when to use different approaches. We implemented a simulation study to evaluate and validate geostatistical models that use continuous distances, and penalised spline models that use a finite discrete approximation for stream networks. Data were simulated from the geostatistical model, with performance measured by empirical prediction and fixed effects estimation. We found that both models were comparable in terms of squared error, with a slight advantage for the geostatistical models. Generally, both methods were unbiased and had valid confidence intervals. The most marked differences were found for confidence intervals on fixed‐effect parameter estimates, where, for small sample sizes, the spline models underestimated variance. However, the penalised spline models were always more computationally efficient, which may be important for real‐time prediction and estimation. Thus, decisions about which method to use must be influenced by the size and format of the data set, in addition to the characteristics of the environmental process and the modelling goals. ©2015 The Authors. Environmetrics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4975718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49757182016-08-23 Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks Rushworth, A. M. Peterson, E. E. Ver Hoef, J. M. Bowman, A. W. Environmetrics Research Articles Scientists need appropriate spatial‐statistical models to account for the unique features of stream network data. Recent advances provide a growing methodological toolbox for modelling these data, but general‐purpose statistical software has only recently emerged, with little information about when to use different approaches. We implemented a simulation study to evaluate and validate geostatistical models that use continuous distances, and penalised spline models that use a finite discrete approximation for stream networks. Data were simulated from the geostatistical model, with performance measured by empirical prediction and fixed effects estimation. We found that both models were comparable in terms of squared error, with a slight advantage for the geostatistical models. Generally, both methods were unbiased and had valid confidence intervals. The most marked differences were found for confidence intervals on fixed‐effect parameter estimates, where, for small sample sizes, the spline models underestimated variance. However, the penalised spline models were always more computationally efficient, which may be important for real‐time prediction and estimation. Thus, decisions about which method to use must be influenced by the size and format of the data set, in addition to the characteristics of the environmental process and the modelling goals. ©2015 The Authors. Environmetrics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-08 2015-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4975718/ /pubmed/27563267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/env.2340 Text en ©2015 The Authors. Environmetrics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Rushworth, A. M.
Peterson, E. E.
Ver Hoef, J. M.
Bowman, A. W.
Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
title Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
title_full Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
title_fullStr Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
title_full_unstemmed Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
title_short Validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
title_sort validation and comparison of geostatistical and spline models for spatial stream networks
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/env.2340
work_keys_str_mv AT rushwortham validationandcomparisonofgeostatisticalandsplinemodelsforspatialstreamnetworks
AT petersonee validationandcomparisonofgeostatisticalandsplinemodelsforspatialstreamnetworks
AT verhoefjm validationandcomparisonofgeostatisticalandsplinemodelsforspatialstreamnetworks
AT bowmanaw validationandcomparisonofgeostatisticalandsplinemodelsforspatialstreamnetworks