. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Dec 1.

Published in final edited form as: Environ Ecol Stat. 2008 Dec;15(4):421–446. doi: 10.1007/s10651-007-0064-6

Table 5.

Average proportion of false positives necessary to the detection of all 67 target edges using three types of neutral models and four estimators for the boundary statistic. The average, minimum and maximum proportions calculated over 25 simulated rate maps are reported. The last column gives the percentage of simulations where the particular method yields the smallest proportion of false positives.

Predictor	Average	Minimum	Maximum	% best results
	Neutral Model I
Raw rates	33.0	24.8	43.7	0
Empirical Bayes	17.2	9.63	27.4	4
Poisson kriging	12.7	7.39	18.2	16
Statistic Δ^s_αβ	15.9	10.3	20.4	0
	Neutral Model II
Raw rates	34.0	26.5	45.1	0
Empirical Bayes	18.5	10.7	29.1	0
Poisson kriging	12.3	6.86	18.4	68
Statistic Δ^s_αβ	15.3	10.9	21.4	0
	Neutral Model III
Poisson kriging	13.2	7.00	19.5	8
Statistic Δ^s_αβ	13.2	6.84	20.3	4