Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Views and Comments
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 14:19–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A, Jiménez-Valverde A, Niccolini G (2007) A multiple-site similarity measure independent of richness. Biol Lett 3:642–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chao A, Jost L, Chiang SC, Jiang Y-H, Chazdon RL (2008) A two-stage probabilistic approach to multiple-community similarity indices. Biometrics 64:1178–1186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diserud OH, Ødegaard F (2007) A multiple–site similarity measure. Biol Lett 3:20–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janson S, Vegelius J (1981) Measures of ecological association. Oecologia 49:371–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2007) Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:2427–2439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2009) Mismeasuring biological diversity: response to Hoffmann and Hoffmann (2008). Ecol Econ 68:925–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2010) Independence of alpha and beta diversities. Ecology 91:1969–1974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jurasinski G, Retzer V, Beierkuhnlein C (2009) Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity. Oecologia 159:15–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laliberté E (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Comment. Ecology 89:3232–3237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd English edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  • Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2005) Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol Monogr 75:435–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Comment. Ecology 89:3238–3244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH (1964) Environmental factors affecting bird species diversity. Am Nat 98:387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH (1965) Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev 40:510–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2010) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Oecologia 163:279–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pélissier R, Couteron P, Dray S (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Comment. Ecology 89:3227–3232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricotta C (2005) Through the jungle of biological diversity. Acta Biotheor 53:29–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Routledge RD (1977) On Whittaker’s components of diversity. Ecology 58:1120–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Routledge RD (1979) Diversity indices: which ones are admissible? J Theor Biol 76:503–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 33:2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H (2010b) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. Ecography 33:23–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H (2010c) A consistent terminology for species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 164:853–860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2006) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity: understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87:2697–2708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Reply. Ecology 89:3244–3256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veech JA, Summerville KS, Crist TO, Gering JC (2002) The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99:3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank many colleagues for intense discussions on species diversity, especially Vroni Retzer, John-Arvid Grytnes, Ole Vetaas and Michael Manthey. Comments by an anonymous reviewer and fruitful discussions with Hanna Tuomisto considerably helped to improve the text. All experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which the experiments were performed. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald Jurasinski.

Additional information

Communicated by Scott Collins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jurasinski, G., Koch, M. Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? We are on the way. Oecologia 167, 893–902 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2126-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2126-6

Keywords

Navigation