Oecologia

, Volume 164, Issue 4, pp 853–860

A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist

Views and Comments

Abstract

The prevailing terminological confusion around the concept ‘diversity’ has hampered accurate communication and caused diversity issues to appear unnecessarily complicated. In fact, a consistent terminology for phenomena related to (species) diversity is already available. When this terminology is adhered to, diversity emerges as an easily understood concept. It is important to differentiate between diversity itself and a diversity index: an index of something is just a surrogate for the thing itself. The conceptual problem of defining diversity also has to be separated from the practical problem of deciding how to adequately quantify diversity for a community of interest. In practice, diversity can be quantified for any dataset where units of observation (such as individuals) have been classified into types (such as species). All that needs to be known is what proportion of the observed units belong to a type of mean abundance. Diversity equals the inverse of this mean, and it quantifies the effective number of the types of interest. In ecology, interest often (but not always) focuses on species diversity. If the dataset consists of (or gets divided into) subunits, then the total effective number of species (gamma diversity) can be partitioned into the effective number of compositionally distinct subunits (beta diversity) and the mean effective number of species per such subunit (alpha diversity). Species richness is related to species diversity, but they are not the same thing; richness does not take the proportional abundances into account and is therefore the actual—rather than the effective—number of types. Most of the phenomena that have been called ‘beta diversity’ in the past do not quantify an effective number of types, so they should be referred to by names other than ‘diversity’ (for example, species turnover or differentiation).

Keywords

Alpha diversity Beta diversity Gamma diversity Species richness Species turnover 

References

  1. Beck J, Schwanghart W (2010) Comparing measures of species diversity from incomplete inventories: an update. Methods Ecol Evol 1:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jost L (2007) Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:2427–2439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Jost L (2009) Mismeasuring biological diversity: response to Hoffmann and Hoffmann (2008). Ecol Econ 68:925–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jurasinski G, Retzer V, Beierkuhnlein C (2009) Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity. Oecologia 159:15–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lande R (1996) Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacArthur RH (1964) Environmental factors affecting bird species diversity. Am Nat 98:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. MacArthur RH (1965) Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev 40:510–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2010) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Oecologia 163:279–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Routledge RD (1977) On Whittaker’s components of diversity. Ecology 58:1120–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Routledge RD (1979) Diversity indices: which ones are admissible? J Theor Biol 76:503–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Shmida A, Wilson MV (1985) Biological determinants of species diversity. J Biogeogr 12:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tuomisto H (2010a) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography 33:2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tuomisto H (2010b) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. Ecography 33:23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Whittaker RH (1977) Evolution of species diversity in land communities. Evol Biol 10:1–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations