4.2 Article

A statistical approach to evaluating distance metrics and analog assignments for pollen records

Journal

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
Volume 60, Issue 3, Pages 356-367

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0033-5894(03)00088-7

Keywords

Bayesian statistics; eastern North America; modern analog technique; pollen analysis; ROC analysis; squared-chord distance; test accuracy; vegetation type

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The modern analog technique typically uses a distance metric to determine the dissimilarity between fossil and modern biological assemblages. Despite this quantitative approach, interpretation of distance metrics is usually qualitative and rules for selection of analogs tend to be ad hoe. We present a statistical tool, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which provides a framework for identifying analogs from distance metrics. If modern assemblages are placed into groups (e.g., biomes), this method can (1) evaluate the ability of different distance metrics to distinguish among groups, (2) objectively identify thresholds of the distance metric for determining analogs, and (3) compute a likelihood ratio and a Bayesian probability that a modern group is an analog for an unknown (fossil) assemblage. Applied to a set of 1689 modern pollen assemblages from eastern North America classified into eight biomes, ROC analysis confirmed that the squared-chord distance (SCD) outperforms most other distance metrics. The optimal threshold increased when more dissimilar biomes were compared. The probability of an analog vs no-analog result (a likelihood ratio) increased sharply when SCD decreased below the optimal threshold, indicating a nonlinear relationship between SCD and the probability of analog. Probabilities of analog computed for a postglacial pollen record at Tannersville Bog (Pennsylvania, USA) identified transitions between biomes and periods of no analog. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available