Advertisement

Ecological Research

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 101–111 | Cite as

Heterogeneity ratio: a measure of beta-diversity and its use in community classification

  • Shiro Kobayashi
Article

Abstract

Fifteen previously proposed similarity indices are examined for the effects of sample size and/or group size (the number of samples included in a cluster). The three indices ofCλ,NESS, andC′λ are free from effects, but the former two are unsuitable for arithmetic averaging unless all of the sample sizes are equal. Thus clustering usingC′λ is found to be superior to the combination of any other similarity index and the group-average strategy. Unfortunately none of these measures have the desirable property of measuring the difference in component species among samples independent of the alpha-diversity. A new index of similarity (HR) is developed based on the assumption that community from which samples are taken is described by a logseries distribution. This new index measures the beta-diversity among samples without the influence of sample size and group size, and has the advantage that the significance of fusing samples can statistically be tested. An example clustering withHR is shown and compared with those obtained by other clustering strategies.

Key words

Beta-diversity Clustering Community classification Dendrogram Similarity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clifford, H. T. &Stephenson, W. (1975) An introduction to numerical classification. Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  2. Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S. &Williams, C. B. (1943) The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. J. Anim. Ecol.12: 42–58.Google Scholar
  3. Gauch, H. G. (1982) Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Goodall, D. W. (1978) Numerical classification. “Classification of plant communities” (ed. Whittaker, R. H.), 247–286. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  5. Grassle, J. F. &Smith, W. (1976) A similarity measure sensitive to the contribution of rare species and its use in investigation of variation in marine benthic communities. Oecologica25: 13–22.Google Scholar
  6. Hill, M. O. (1979) DECORANA, a FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y..Google Scholar
  7. Horn, H. S. (1966) Measurement of “overlap” in comparative ecological studies. Am. Nat.100: 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaccard, P. (1901) Distribution de la flore alpine dans le Bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines. Bull. Soc. vaud. Sci. nat.37: 241–272 (Cited indirectly).Google Scholar
  9. Kobayashi, S. (1982) The rarefaction diversity measurement and the spatial distribution of indiviuals. Jap. J. Ecol.32: 255–258.Google Scholar
  10. — (1985) Species diversity preserved in different numbers of nature reserves of the same total area. Res. Popul. Ecol.27: 137–143.Google Scholar
  11. Koch, L. F. (1957) Index of biotal dispersity. Ecology38: 145–148.Google Scholar
  12. Kontkanen, P. (1957) Onthe delimitation of communities in research on animal biocoenotics. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.22: 373–375Google Scholar
  13. Lance, G. N. &Williams, W. T. (1967) A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies. I. Hierarchical systems. Computer J.9: 373–380Google Scholar
  14. Legendre, L. &Legendre, P. (1983) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. MacArthur, R. H. (1965) Patterns of species diversity. Biol. Rev.40: 510–533Google Scholar
  16. Morisita, M. (1959) Measuring of interspecific association and similarity between communities. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ., Ser. E (Biol.)3: 65–80Google Scholar
  17. — (1971) Composition of theIδ-index. Res. Popul. Ecol.13: 1–27.Google Scholar
  18. Mountford, M. D. (1962) An index of similarity and its application to classificatory problems. “Progress in soil zoology” (ed. Murphy, P. W.), 43–50. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  19. Orlóci, L. (1967) An agglomerative method for classification of plant communities. J. Ecol.55: 193–206.Google Scholar
  20. — (1978) Multivariate analysis in vegetation research, 2nd ed. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  21. Pielou, E. C. (1984) The interpretation of ecological data, a primer on classification and ordination. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.Google Scholar
  22. Preston, F. W. (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology43: 185–215 410–432.Google Scholar
  23. Ricklefs, R. E. &Lau, M. (1980) Bias and dispersion of overlap indices: results of some Monte Carlo simulations. Ecology61: 1019–1024.Google Scholar
  24. Rohlf, F. J. (1974) Methods of comparing classifications. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.5: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Routledge, R. D. (1977) On Whittaker's components of diversity. Ecology58: 1120–1127.Google Scholar
  26. Shinozaki, K. (1983) A simple method to calculate Fisher's α, an index of diversity. Bull. Tezukayama Univ., No.20: 69–73 (In Japanese with English summary).Google Scholar
  27. Sneath, P. H. A. &Sokal, R. R. (1973) Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  28. Sørensen, T. (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. Biol. Skr. K. danske Vidensk. Selsk.5: 1–34 (Cited indirectly).Google Scholar
  29. Whittaker, R. H. (1952) A study of summer foliage insect communities in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr.22: 1–44.Google Scholar
  30. — (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol. Monogr.30: 279–338.Google Scholar
  31. — (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon21: 213–251.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, C. B. (1947) The logarithmic series and the comparison of island floras. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond.158: 104–108.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, W. T., Lambert, J. M. &Lance, G. N. (1966) Multivariate methods in plant ecology. V. Similarity analyses and information-analysis. J. Ecol.54: 427–445.Google Scholar
  34. —,Lance, G. N., Webb, L. J. &Tracey, J. G. (1973) Studies in the numerical analysis of complex rain-forest communities. J. Ecol.61: 47–70.Google Scholar
  35. Wishart, D. (1969) CLUSTAN 1A. Computing Lab. St. Andrews (Cited indirectly).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecological Society of Japan 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiro Kobayashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of AgricultureYamagata UniversityTsuruokaJapan

Personalised recommendations