Oecologia

, Volume 167, Issue 4, pp 893–902

Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? We are on the way

Views and Comments

Abstract

A consistent terminology for species diversity is subject of an ongoing debate. Recently Tuomisto (Oecologia 164:853–860, 2010) stated that a consistent terminology for diversity already exists. The paper comments on recent papers by ourselves (Jurasinski et al. Oecologia 159:15–26, 2009) and by Moreno and Rodriguez (Oecologia 163:279–282, 2010). Both started from Whittaker’s diversity concept to discuss the ambiguities of the terminology and propose a new, more consistent terminology that is based on the different approaches to diversity analysis. In contrast, Tuomisto adheres to a strict school of thinking and derives a diversity framework in the sense of Whittaker (alpha, beta, gamma) from the conceptual definition of diversity itself. A third group of papers discusses appropriate methods for the analysis of the variation in species composition. Here, we support the idea that alpha, beta and gamma diversity should be used in a strict sense that is based only on the conceptual definition of diversity. We accordingly extend and modify our terminological concept for species diversity. All approaches to the analysis and quantification of species composition and diversity can be assigned to three abstraction levels (species composition, variation in species composition,and variation in variation in species composition) and two scale levels (sample scale, aggregation scale). All methods that investigate the variation in species composition across scale levels evaluate beta relation with beta diversity being just one form of beta relation, which is calculated by dividing gamma diversity of order q by the appropriate alpha diversity of the same order. In contrast, differentiation refers to a pairwise calculation of resemblance in species composition. It is restricted to sample scale and is therefore most often only an intermediate step of analysis. Many ecological questions can be addressed either by direct analysis of the variation in species composition using raw data approaches or by further analysis of differentiation datasets on aggregation scale with or without respect to an external gradient.

Keywords

Alpha diversity Beta diversity Gamma diversity Diversity partitioning Species turnover 

References

  1. Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend M, Inouye BD, Freestone AL, Sanders NJ, Cornell HV, Comita LS, Davies KF, Harrison SP, Kraft NJB, Stegen JC, Swenson NG (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of beta diversity. a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baselga A, Jiménez-Valverde A, Niccolini G (2007) A multiple-site similarity measure independent of richness. Biol Lett 3:642–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chao A, Jost L, Chiang SC, Jiang Y-H, Chazdon RL (2008) A two-stage probabilistic approach to multiple-community similarity indices. Biometrics 64:1178–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diserud OH, Ødegaard F (2007) A multiple–site similarity measure. Biol Lett 3:20–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Janson S, Vegelius J (1981) Measures of ecological association. Oecologia 49:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jost L (2007) Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:2427–2439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jost L (2009) Mismeasuring biological diversity: response to Hoffmann and Hoffmann (2008). Ecol Econ 68:925–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jost L (2010) Independence of alpha and beta diversities. Ecology 91:1969–1974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jurasinski G, Retzer V, Beierkuhnlein C (2009) Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity. Oecologia 159:15–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jurasinski G (2011) simba: A collection of functions for similarity analysis of vegetation data. R package version 0.3-3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=simba
  13. Jurasinski G, Jentsch A, Retzer V, Beierkuhnlein C (2011) Detecting spatial patterns in species composition with multiple plot similarity coefficients and singularity measures. Ecography. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06718.x
  14. Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laliberté E (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Comment. Ecology 89:3232–3237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd English edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2005) Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol Monogr 75:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Comment. Ecology 89:3238–3244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacArthur RH (1964) Environmental factors affecting bird species diversity. Am Nat 98:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacArthur RH (1965) Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev 40:510–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2010) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Oecologia 163:279–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pélissier R, Couteron P, Dray S (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Comment. Ecology 89:3227–3232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ricotta C (2005) Through the jungle of biological diversity. Acta Biotheor 53:29–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Routledge RD (1977) On Whittaker’s components of diversity. Ecology 58:1120–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Routledge RD (1979) Diversity indices: which ones are admissible? J Theor Biol 76:503–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Tuomisto H (2010c) A consistent terminology for species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 164:853–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2006) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity: understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87:2697–2708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Reply. Ecology 89:3244–3256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veech JA, Summerville KS, Crist TO, Gering JC (2002) The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Landscape Ecology and Site Evaluation, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations