Cargando…
Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness
Estimation of the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on ecosystems and biodiversity is a research imperative. Analyses of large-scale spatial gradients, where an observed response is correlated with measured or modelled deposition, have been an important source of evidence. A number of p...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33520449 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10632 |
_version_ | 1783637241388597248 |
---|---|
author | Smart, Simon M. Stevens, Carly J. Tomlinson, Sam J. Maskell, Lindsay C. Henrys, Peter A. |
author_facet | Smart, Simon M. Stevens, Carly J. Tomlinson, Sam J. Maskell, Lindsay C. Henrys, Peter A. |
author_sort | Smart, Simon M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Estimation of the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on ecosystems and biodiversity is a research imperative. Analyses of large-scale spatial gradients, where an observed response is correlated with measured or modelled deposition, have been an important source of evidence. A number of problems beset this approach. For example, if responses are spatially aggregated then treating each location as statistically independent can lead to biased confidence intervals and a greater probably of false positive results. Using methods that account for residual spatial autocorrelation, Pescott & Jitlal (2020) re-analysed two large-scale spatial gradient datasets from Britain where modelled N deposition at 5 × 5 km resolution had been previously correlated with species richness in small quadrats. They found that N deposition effects were weaker than previously demonstrated leading them to conclude that “previous estimates of Ndep impacts on richness from space-for-time substitution studies are likely to have been over-estimated”. We use a simulation study to show that their conclusion is unreliable despite them recognising that an influential fraction of the residual spatially structured variation could itself be attributable to N deposition. This arises because the covariate used was modelled N deposition at 5 × 5 km resolution leaving open the possibility that measured or modelled N deposition at finer resolutions could explain more variance in the response. Explicitly treating this as spatially auto-correlated error ignores this possibility and leads directly to their unreliable conclusion. We further demonstrate the plausibility of this scenario by showing that significant variation in N deposition at the 1 km square resolution is indeed averaged at 5 × 5 km resolution. Further analyses are required to explore whether estimation of the size of the N deposition effect on plant species richness and other measures of biodiversity is indeed dependent on the accuracy and hence measurement error of the N deposition covariate. Until then the conclusions of Pescott & Jitlal (2020) should be considered premature. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7810039 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78100392021-01-28 Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness Smart, Simon M. Stevens, Carly J. Tomlinson, Sam J. Maskell, Lindsay C. Henrys, Peter A. PeerJ Biodiversity Estimation of the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on ecosystems and biodiversity is a research imperative. Analyses of large-scale spatial gradients, where an observed response is correlated with measured or modelled deposition, have been an important source of evidence. A number of problems beset this approach. For example, if responses are spatially aggregated then treating each location as statistically independent can lead to biased confidence intervals and a greater probably of false positive results. Using methods that account for residual spatial autocorrelation, Pescott & Jitlal (2020) re-analysed two large-scale spatial gradient datasets from Britain where modelled N deposition at 5 × 5 km resolution had been previously correlated with species richness in small quadrats. They found that N deposition effects were weaker than previously demonstrated leading them to conclude that “previous estimates of Ndep impacts on richness from space-for-time substitution studies are likely to have been over-estimated”. We use a simulation study to show that their conclusion is unreliable despite them recognising that an influential fraction of the residual spatially structured variation could itself be attributable to N deposition. This arises because the covariate used was modelled N deposition at 5 × 5 km resolution leaving open the possibility that measured or modelled N deposition at finer resolutions could explain more variance in the response. Explicitly treating this as spatially auto-correlated error ignores this possibility and leads directly to their unreliable conclusion. We further demonstrate the plausibility of this scenario by showing that significant variation in N deposition at the 1 km square resolution is indeed averaged at 5 × 5 km resolution. Further analyses are required to explore whether estimation of the size of the N deposition effect on plant species richness and other measures of biodiversity is indeed dependent on the accuracy and hence measurement error of the N deposition covariate. Until then the conclusions of Pescott & Jitlal (2020) should be considered premature. PeerJ Inc. 2021-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7810039/ /pubmed/33520449 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10632 Text en ©2021 Smart et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Biodiversity Smart, Simon M. Stevens, Carly J. Tomlinson, Sam J. Maskell, Lindsay C. Henrys, Peter A. Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
title | Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
title_full | Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
title_fullStr | Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
title_full_unstemmed | Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
title_short | Comment on Pescott & Jitlal 2020: Failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
title_sort | comment on pescott & jitlal 2020: failure to account for measurement error undermines their conclusion of a weak impact of nitrogen deposition on plant species richness |
topic | Biodiversity |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33520449 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10632 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smartsimonm commentonpescottjitlal2020failuretoaccountformeasurementerrorunderminestheirconclusionofaweakimpactofnitrogendepositiononplantspeciesrichness AT stevenscarlyj commentonpescottjitlal2020failuretoaccountformeasurementerrorunderminestheirconclusionofaweakimpactofnitrogendepositiononplantspeciesrichness AT tomlinsonsamj commentonpescottjitlal2020failuretoaccountformeasurementerrorunderminestheirconclusionofaweakimpactofnitrogendepositiononplantspeciesrichness AT maskelllindsayc commentonpescottjitlal2020failuretoaccountformeasurementerrorunderminestheirconclusionofaweakimpactofnitrogendepositiononplantspeciesrichness AT henryspetera commentonpescottjitlal2020failuretoaccountformeasurementerrorunderminestheirconclusionofaweakimpactofnitrogendepositiononplantspeciesrichness |