Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 157–167 | Cite as

A measure for assessing functional diversity in ecological communities

Article

Abstract

Functional diversity is regarded as a key in understanding the link between ecosystem function and biodiversity, but its measurement is rather problematic. The two widely used continuous measures are the dendrogram-based measure (DBM) and the functional attribute diversity (FAD). In contrast to DBM, FAD does not require the knowledge of the entire species pool before the analysis, and hence FAD is a more ideal tool for measuring functional diversity. However, the original form of FAD and its variants have several undesirable properties. Here, we suggest a modified FAD (denoted by MFAD), which—as illustrated by artificial and actual data sets—allows calculating functional diversity without violating the twinning and monotonicity criteria such that the number of species collected is compensated for. These requirements are met by replacing the original species by so-called functional species and then by dividing FAD by the number of functional units. Accordingly, MFAD measures the dispersion of species in the functional traits space so that MFAD values for different communities can directly be compared if the same set of functional traits is used. Finally, using data of two freshwater communities (caddisfly and riverine fish), we evaluate the change of species richness and functional diversity in relation to sampling effort (sample unit size). We found that functional diversity is a better and more reliable community descriptor than species richness in a sense that it converges to the maximum faster in the function of sampling effort.

Keywords

Functional attribute diversity Species traits Trichoptera Fish Unique functional unit 

References

  1. Anderberg MR (1973) Cluster analysis for application. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bady P, Doledec S, Fesl C, Gayraud S, Bacchi M, Schöll F (2005) Use of invertebrate traits for the monitoring of European large rivers: the effects of sampling effort on genus richness and functional diversity. Freshwat Biol 50:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botta-Dukát Z (2005) Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. J Veg Sci 16:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao Y, Williams DD, Larsen DP (2002) Comparison of ecological communities: the problem of sample representativeness. Ecol Monogr 72:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chevenet F, Doledec S, Chessel D (1994) A fuzzy coding approach for the analysis of long-term ecological data. Freshwat Biol 31:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummins KW, Merritt RW, Andrade PCN (2005) The use of invertebrate functional groups to characterize ecosystem attributes in selected streams and rivers in south Brazil. Stud Neotrop Fauna Environ 40:69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erős T, Grossman GD (2005) Fish biodiversity in two Hungarian streams: a landscape-based approach. Arch Hydrobiol 162:53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erős T, Sevcsik A, Tóth B (2005) Abundance and night time habitat use patterns of Ponto-Caspian gobiid species (Pisces, Gobiidae) in the littoral zone of the River Danube, Hungary. J Appl Ichthyol 21:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erős T, Tóth B, Sevcsik A, Schmera D (2008) Comparison of fish assemblage diversity in natural and artificial rip-rap habitats in the littoral zone of a large river (River Danube, Hungary) Int Rev Hydrobiol in pressGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstein RM, Meador MR (2004) Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams to large rivers. Trans Am Fisheries Soc 133:971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heemsbergen DA, Berg MP, Loreau M, van Hal JR, Faber JH, Verhoef HA (2004) Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by intraspecific functional dissimilarity. Science 306:1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurlbert SL (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative paramteres. Ecology 52:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiguet F, Julliard R, Couvet D, Petiau A (2005) Modeling spatial trends in estimated species richness using breeding bird survey data: a valuable tool in biodiversity assessment. Biodivers Conserv 14:3305–3324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenkel NC, Juhász-Nagy P, Podani J (1989) On sampling procedures in population and community ecology. Vegetation 83:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawton JH, Brown VK (1993) Redundancy in ecosystems. In: Schulze E, Mooney H (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer Verlag, Berlin. pp 255–270Google Scholar
  17. Lancaster J, Bradley DC, Hogan A, Waldorn S (2005) Intraguild omnivory in predatory stream insects. J Anim Ecol 74:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li J, Herlihy A, Gerth W, Kaufmann P, Gregory S, Urquhart S, Larsen DP (2001) Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scale. Freshwat Biol 46:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Magurran E (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Mason NWH, Mouillot D, Lee WG, Wilson JB (2005) Functional, richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 11:112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moog O (1995) Fauna aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung Mai/95. Wasserwirtschaftkataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, WienGoogle Scholar
  22. Mouillot D, Mason WHN, Dumay O, Wilson JB (2005) Functional regularity: a neglected aspect of functional diversity. Oecologia 142:353–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2002) Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition. Ecol Lett 5:402–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2006) Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett 9:741–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petchey OL, Downing AL, Mittelbach GG, Persson L, Steiner CF, Warren PH, Woodward G (2004a) Species loss and the structure and functioning of multitrophic aquatic systems. Oikos 104:467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petchey OL, Hector A, Gaston KJ (2004b) How different measures of functional diversity perform? Ecology 85:847–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Podani J (1999) Extending Gower’s general coefficient of similarity to ordinal characters. Taxon 48:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Podani J (2000) Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological data. Backhuys, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  30. Podani J, Schmera D (2006) On dendrogram-based measures of functional diversity. Oikos 115:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poff NL, Allan JD (1995) Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76:606–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rao CR (1982) Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: an unified approach. Theoret Popul Biol 21:24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ricotta C (2005) A note on functional diversity measures. Basic Appl Ecol 6:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmera D (2003) Assessing stream dwelling caddisfly assemblages (Insecta: Trichoptera) collected by light traps in Hungary. Biodivers Conserv 12:1175–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmera D (2004) Spatial distribution and coexistence patterns of caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera) in a Hungarian stream. Int Rev Hydrobiol 89:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmera D, Erős T (2004) Effect of riverbed morphology, stream order and season on the structural and functional attributes of caddisfly assemblages (Insecta: Trichoptera). Ann Limnol – Int J Limnol 40:193–200Google Scholar
  37. Schmera D, Erős T (2006) Estimating sample representativeness in a survey of stream caddisfly fauna. Ann Limnol – Int J Limnol 42:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Solow A, Polasky S, Broadus J (1993) On the measurement of biological diversity. J Environ Econ Manage 24:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Statzner B, Gore JA, Resh VH (1998) Monte Carlo simulations of benthic macroinvertebrate populations: estimates using random, stratified, and gradient sampling. J North Am Benth Soc 17:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Statzner B, Bady P, Doledec S, Schöll F (2005) Invertebrate traits for the biomonitoring of large European rivers: an initial assessment of trait patterns in least impacted river reaches. Freshwat Biol 50:2136–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich PB, Ritchie M, Sieman E (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker B, Kinzig AP, Langride J (1999) Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waringer J, Graf W (1997) Atlas der Österreichischen Köcherfliegenlarven. Fakultas Universitatverlag, WienGoogle Scholar
  44. Weitzman ML (1992) On diversity. Quart J Econ 107:363–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolter C, Freyhoff J (2004) Diel distribution patterns of fishes in a temperate large lowland river. J Fish Biol 64:632–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woodward G, Speirs DC, Hildrew AG (2005) Qualification and resolution of a complex, size-structured food web. Adv Ecol Res 36:85–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of NyíregyházaInstitute of BiologyNyíregyházaHungary
  2. 2.Balaton Limnological Research InstituteHungarian Academy of SciencesTihanyHungary
  3. 3.Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Biological InstituteEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations