Meaningful quantification of species diversity requires that both ‘species’ and ‘diversity’ are unambiguously defined. Rigorous rules of nomenclature exist to ensure that each species has a single unique name, but the naming of concepts is much more variable. As a consequence, ‘diversity’ has been defined in so many different ways that its ability to transfer accurate information has been compromised. This problem can be solved by defining ‘diversity’ as the effective number of species (or other types of interest), and using the term ‘true diversity’ to specify that this narrow concept is being used (analogously to using the term ‘true bugs’ when adhering to a narrow circumscription of ‘bugs’). Other measures related to diversity (such as entropies and probabilities) continue to be useful, but they represent different phenomena and should therefore be referred to by different names. Total species diversity in a dataset can be partitioned into two components in several different ways. The components of a specific multiplicative partitioning can be called true alpha diversity and true beta diversity. When the partitioning is done in some other way, the resulting components are different and should be called by other names. For example, the beta component of additive partitioning does not equal true beta diversity, but can logically be called species turnover. All the phenomena that have been called ‘beta diversity’ in the ecological literature have also been called by alternative unique names. Consequently, a consistent terminology is already available; only a general agreement to use it is lacking.
Alpha diversity Beta diversity Gamma diversity Diversity partitioning Species turnover
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
I thank Root Gorelick, Gerald Jurasinski, Claudia Moreno, Samuel M. Scheiner, Marti J. Anderson and Kalle Ruokolainen for fruitful discussions that helped focus the present paper.
Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend M, Inouye BD, Freestone AL et al (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baselga A (2010) Multiplicative partition of true diversity yields independent alpha and beta components; additive partition does not. Ecology 91:1974–1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorelick R (2011) Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? The fallacy of true diversity. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2124-8
Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurasinski G, Koch M (2011) Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? We are on the way. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2126-6
Jurasinski G, Retzer V, Beierkuhnlein C (2009) Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity. Oecologia 159:15–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande R (1996) Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2010) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Oecologia 163:282–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2011) Commentary: 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
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
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
Tuomisto H (2010c) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 164:853–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2006) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87:2697–2708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Reply. Ecology 89:3244–3256CrossRefGoogle Scholar