Oecologia

, Volume 167, Issue 4, pp 885–888 | Cite as

Commentary: Do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? The fallacy of true diversity

Views and Comments

Abstract

There is no single best index that can be used to answer all questions about species diversity. Entropy-based diversity indices, including Hill’s indices, cannot account for geographical and phylogenetic structure. While a single diversity index arises if we impose several constraints—most notably that gamma diversity be completely decomposed into alpha and beta diversity—there are many ecological questions regarding species diversity for which it is counterproductive, requiring decomposability. Non-decomposable components of gamma diversity may quantify important intrinsic ecological properties, such as resilience or nestedness.

Keywords

Alpha diversity Beta diversity Gamma diversity Diversity partitioning Hill index 

References

  1. Banach S, Tarski A (1924) Sur la décomposition des ensembles de points en parties respectivement congruentes. Fund Math 6:244–277Google Scholar
  2. Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ, Olesen JM (2003) The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:9383–9387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedeian AG, Mossholder KW (2000) On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organ Res Method 3:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boltzmann L (1872) Weitere studien über das wärmegleichgewicht unter gasmolekülen. Sitzungsber Akad Wiss Wein 66:275–370 Google Scholar
  5. Cachelin A, Norvell R, Darling A (2010) Language fouls in teaching ecology: why traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conserv Biol 24:669–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feyerabend P (1975) Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. New Left Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 41:18–32Google Scholar
  10. Gorelick R, Bertram SM (2007) Quantifying division of labor: borrowing tools from sociology, sociobiology, information theory, landscape ecology, and biogeography. Insect Soc 54:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorelick R, Bertram SM (2010) Multi-way multi-group segregation and diversity indices. PLoS One 5:e10912 (online)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grusky DB, Charles M (1998) The past, present, and future of sex segregation methodology. Demography 35:497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmann S, Hoffmann A (2008) Is there “true” diversity? Ecol Econ 65:203–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Lobachevski N (1840) Geometrical researches on the theory of parallels [translator: G. B. Halstead, 1914]. Open Court, La SalleGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin WT, Gray LN (1971) Measurement of relative variance: sociological examples. Am Soc Rev 36:496–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martins EP, Hansen TF (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am Nat 149:646–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendes RS, Evangelista LR, Thomaz SM, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC (2008) A unified index to measure ecological diversity and species rarity. Ecography 31:450–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2011) Do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? Back to basics and toward a unifying framework. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2125-7
  23. Norton BG (1994) On what we should save: the role of cultures in determining conservation targets. In: Forey P, Humphries CJ, Vane-Wright RI (eds) Systematics and conservation evaluation. Systematics Association/Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 23–40Google Scholar
  24. Rao CR (1982) Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: a unified approach. Theor Popul Biol 21:24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reardon SF, Firebaugh G (2002) Measures of multigroup segregation. Soc Method 32:33–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Sys Tech J 27:379–423, 623–656Google Scholar
  27. Strang G (1976) Linear algebra and its applications. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tufte ER (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, CheshireGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuomisto H (2010) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 164:853–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagner GP (2010) The measurement theory of fitness. Evolution 64:1358–1376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagner GP, Laubichler MD, Bagheri-Chaichian H (1998) Genetic measurement theory of epistatic effects. Genetica 102(103):569–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walker B (2001) Ecosystems and immune systems: useful analogy or stretching a metaphor? Conserv Ecol 15:16 (online)Google Scholar
  34. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:5 (online)Google Scholar
  35. Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 20. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 77–140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and School of Mathematics and StatisticsCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations