Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring non-biological diversity using commonly used metrics: Strengths, weaknesses and caveats for their application in beach litter management

  • Published:
Journal of Coastal Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to increasing worldwide anthropogenic pressure and in order to promote adequate environmental conservation strategies, quantification of non-biological diversity, such as considering marine and beach litter, is becoming increasingly useful. Information on beach litter in terms of richness and diversity may have a consistent influence regarding the evaluation of its pressure and impact on coastal ecosystems. Highlighted are strengths, weaknesses and caveats concerning the use of uni- and bi-variate diversity metrics applied to a class of man-made non-biological objects periodically accumulated on the beaches. Two case studies show evidence that the application of diversity metrics on non-biological objects may have different implications. In absence of a universal and standardized non-biological taxonomy, it is important to be cautious when comparing values obtained from non-living assemblages, in particular if different sites, time or operators are considered. Moreover, different indices provide different information. Therefore, users should pay particular attention on the application of diversity metrics, addressing specific research questions and avoiding automatic calculation of redundant and “magic” indices.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abu-Hilal A, Al-Najjar T (2009) Marine litter in coral reef areas along the Jordan gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. J Environm Manag 90:1043–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araujo MC, Costa MF (2007) An analysis of the riverine contribution to the solid wastes contamination of an isolated beach at the Brazilian northeast. Manag Environm Qual 18:6–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battisti C, Contoli L (2011) Diversity indices as 'magic' tools in landscape planning: a cautionary note on their uncritical use. Landsc Res 36:111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battisti C, Fanelli G (2015) Applying indicators of disturbance from plant ecology to vertebrates: the hemeroby of bird species. Ecol Indic 61:799–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battisti C, Fanelli G, Mariani L, Capizzi D (2017) Assessing disturbance-sensitivity and generalism in mammals: corroborating a hump-shaped relationship using a hemerobiotic approach. Ecol Indic 76:178–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista Neto JA, Fonseca EM (2011) Seasonal, spatial and compositional variation of debris along the beaches of the eastern shore of Guanabara Bay (Rio de Janeiro) in the period 1999–2008. J Integr Coast Manag 11:31–39

  • Benton TG (1995) From castaways to throwaways: marine litter in the Pitcairn Islands. Biol J Linn Soc 56:415–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickford D, Lohman DJ Sodhi NS, Peter KL Ng, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK, Das I (2007) Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 22:148–155

  • Borja A, Dauer DM (2008) Assessing the environmental quality status in estuarine and coastal systems: comparing methodologies and indices. Ecol Indic 8:331–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne MA, Underwood AJ, Chapman MG, Williams R, Thompson RC, van Franeker JA (2015) Linking effects of anthropogenic debris to ecological impacts. Proceed Royal Soc London, Ser. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2929

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2012) Secretariat of the convention on biological diversity and the scientific and technical advisory panel-GEF. Impacts of marine debris on biodiversity: current status and potential solutions, Montreal, Technical Series No. 67, pp 61

  • Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Shen TJ (2005) A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol Lett 8:148–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claereboudt MR (2004) Shore litter along sandy beaches of the Gulf of Oman. Mar Poll Bull 49:770–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contoli L, Luiselli L (2015) Contributions to biodiversity theory: the importance of formal rigor. Web Ecol 15:33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Silva ML, de Araújo FV, Castro RO, Sales AS (2015) Spatial-temporal analysis of marine debris on beaches of Niterói, RJ, Brazil: Itaipu and Itacoatiara. Mar Poll Bull 92:233–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dantas VC, Silva JC, Morais EC, Bezerra KB, Chaves MF, Riul P (2011) Influence of the Paraíba river in the density of solid waste on Lucena beaches, Paraíba, Brazil. XIV Latin American Congress of Marine Sciences, Santa Catarina

  • Dauvin JC, Ruellet T, Desroy N, Janson AL (2006) The ecological quality status of the bay of seine and the seine estuary: use of biotic indices. Mar Poll Bull 55:241–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deudero S, Alomar C (2015) Mediterranean Marine Biodiversity under Threat: Reviewing Influence ofMarine Litter on Species. Mar Poll Bull 98:58–68

  • Dissart JC (2003) Regional economic diversity and regional economic stability: research results and agenda. Intern Reg Sc Rev 26:423–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornelas M, Soykan CU, Ugland KI (2011) Biodiversity and disturbance. In: McGill BJ (ed) Magurran A. Oxford University press, Biological diversity. Frontiers in measurements and assessments. Oxford, pp 237–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Dytham C (2011) Using and choosing statistics: a biologist’s guide. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Earll RC, Williams AT, Simmons SL, Tudor DT (2000) Aquatic litter, management and prevention – the role of measurement. J Coast Conserv 6:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43:409–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira JA, Silva CA, Resende AT (2011) Clean bay project: monitoring of marine environments degraded by solid waste in Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Integr Coast Manag 11:103–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Galgani F, Leaute JP, Moguedet P, Souplets A, Verin Y, Carpenter A, Goraguer H, Latrouite D, Andral B, Cadiou Y, Mahe JC, Poulard JC, Nerisson P (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar Poll Bull 40:516–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galgani F, Fleet D, VanFraneker J, Katsanevaskis S, Maes T, Mouat J, Oosterbaan L, Poitou I, Hanke G, Thompson R, Amato E, Birkun A, Janssen C (2010) Marine strategy framework directive. Task group 10 report, marine litter. EUR 24340 EN

  • Galgani F, Hanke G, Werner S, Piha H (2011) MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter. Technical Recommendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements. JRC scientific and technical report, EUR 25009 EN – 2011, pp 93

  • Galgani F, Hanke G, Werner S, Oosterbaan L, Nilsson P, Fleet D, McKinsey S, Thompson R, VanFraneker J, Vlachogianni T, Scoullos M, Mira VJ, Palatinus A, Matiddi M, Maes T, Korpinen S, Budziak A, Leslie H, Gago J, Liebezeit G (2013) MSFD technical group on marine litter, guidance on monitoring of marine litter in European seas. JRC scientific and policy reports, SJRC83985. doi:10.2788/99475128

  • Gillett S (2003) In praise of policy diversity, position paper for OII broadband forum. Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroski P (1989) The choice between diversity and scale. In: Davies E (ed), myths and realities. London, Centre for Business Strategy, London Business School, pp 29–45

  • Golik A, Gertner Y (1992) Litter on the Israeli coastline. Mar Environm Res 33:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabher G, Stark D (1997) Organizing diversity: evolutionary theory, network analysis and postsocialism. Reg Stud 31:533–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton AJ (2005) Species diversity or biodiversity? J Environm Manag 75:89–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Help CHR, Herman PMJ, Soetaert K (1998) Indices of diversity and evenness. Océanis 24:61–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess NA, Ribic CA, Vining I (1999) Benthic marine debris, with an emphasis on fishery-related items, surrounding Kodiak Island, Alaska, 1994–1996. Mar Poll Bull 38:885–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended Correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B, Albrechtsen H (1995) Toward a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. J Am Soc Inform Sc 46:400–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Junk, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivar do Sul JA, Costa MF (2007) Marine debris in the wider Caribbean region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar Poll Bull 54:1087–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives AR, Carpenter SR (2007) Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 317:58–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koufodimos G, Samaras Z (2002) Waste management options in southern Europe using field and experimental data. Waste Manag 22:47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagawa S (2011) Frontiers on environmental input-output analysis. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen P (2004) The DPSIR framework http://enviro.lclark.edu:8002/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1145949501662_742777852_522

  • Kako S, Isobe A, Magome S (2010) Sequential monitoring of beach litter using webcams. Mar Poll Bull 60:775–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keylock CJ (2005) Simpson diversity and the Shannon–Wiener index as special cases of a generalized entropy. Oikos 109:203–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koleff P, Lennon JJ, Gaston KJ (2003) Are there latitudinal gradients in species turnover? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1996) Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK

  • Magurran A, McGill BJ (2011) Biological diversity. Frontiers in measurements and assessments. Oxford University press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M (2009) Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation. Evaluat Progr Plann 32:138–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall RE, Farahbakhsh K (2013) Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Managem 33:988–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin MA, Rey J-M (2000) On the role of Shannon’s entropy as a measure of heterogeneity. Geoderma 98:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann KS (2000) The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405:228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micallef A, Williams AT (2002) Theoretical strategy considerations for beach management. Ocean Coast Managem 45:261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore CJ (2008) Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environm Res 108:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore SL, Gregorio D, Carreon M, Weisberg SB, Leecaster MK (2001) Composition and distribution of beach debris in Orange County, California. Mar Poll Bull 42:241–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neves RC, Santos LAS, Oliveira KSS, Nogueira ICM, Loureiro DV, Franco T, Farias PM, Bourguinon SN, Catabriga GM, Boni GC, Quaresma VS (2011) Qualitative analysis of litter distribution in Barra Beach (Vila Velha – ES). J Integr Coast Manag 11:57–64

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Oigman-Pszczol SS, Creed JC (2007) Quantification and classification of marine litter on beaches along Armacao dos Buzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Coast Res 23:421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2010a) Guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the OSPAR area, Edition 1.0, ISBN 90 3631 973 9, 16 pp

  • OSPAR Commission (2010b) Photo guide for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the OSPAR area, 100 m. Edition 1.0, 40 pp

  • Padial JM, Miralles A, De la Riva I, Vences M (2010) The integrative future of taxonomy. Front Zool 7:16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet RK (1974) The measurement of species diversity. Ann Rev Ecol System 5:285–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham CK, Ramirez-Llodra E, CHS A, Amaro T, Bergmann M, Canals M, Company JB, Davies J, Duineveld G, Galgani F, Howell KL, Huvenne VAI, Isidro E, DOB J, Lastras G, Morato T, Gomes-Pereira JN, Purser A, Stewart H, Tojeira I, Tubau X, Van Rooij D, Tyler PA (2014) Marine litter distribution and density in European seas, from the shelves to deep basins. PLoS One 9:e95839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielou EC (1966) Shannon's formula as a measure of specific diversity: its use and misuse. Am Nat 100:463–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielou EC (1969) An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Poeta G, Battisti C, Acosta ATR (2014) Marine litter in Mediterranean sandy littorals: spatial distribution patterns along central Italy coastal dunes. Mar Poll Bull 89:168–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poeta G, Battisti C, Bazzichetto M, Acosta A (2016) The cotton buds beach: marine litter assessment along the Tyrrhenian coast of central Italy following the marine strategy framework directive criteria. Mar Poll Bull 113:266–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston FW (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43(185–215):410–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven PH, Berlin B, Breedlovee DE (1971) The origins of taxonomy. Science 174:1210–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricotta C, Carranza ML, Avena C (2002) Computing beta-diversity from species-area curves. Basic Appl Ecol 3:15–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricotta C, Corona P, Marchetti M (2003) Beware of contagion!. Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (3):173-177

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton M (2008) A note on the use and misuse of the racial diversity index. Policy Studies Journal 36:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol 16:1469–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw PJA (2003) Multivariate statistics for the environmental sciences. Hodder Arno, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevchenko E, Talapin D, Kotov N, O'Brien S, Murray C (2006) Structural diversity in binary nanoparticle superlattices. Nature 439:55–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1949) Measurements of diversity. Nature 163:688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spellerberg IF, Fedor PJ (2003) A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity and the ‘Shannon–Wiener’ index. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:177–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Zhang X, Palmquist RB (1997) Marine debris, beach quality, and non- market values. Environm Res Econ 10:223–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storrier KL, McGlashan DJ, Bonellie S, Velander K (2007) Beach litter deposition at a selection of beaches in the firth of forth, Scotland. J Coast Res 23:813–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suaria G, Aliani S (2014) Floating debris in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Poll Bull 86:494–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudor DT, Williams AT, Phillips MR, Thomas MC (2002) Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of some indices suitable for litter analysis. In: Veloso-Gomes F, Taveira-Pinto F, das Neves Littoral L (2002). The changing coast, Vol. 1. Lisboa, Portugal: Eurocoast, pp 367–374

  • Tudor DT, Williams AT (2004) Development of a “matrix scoring technique” to determine litter sources at a Bristol Channel beach. J Coast Conserv 10:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP MAP/MED POL (2009) Marine litter in the Mediterranean region. United Nations Environment Programme, pp 1–84

  • Washington HG (1984) Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res 18:653–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1965) Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science 147:250–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams AT, Tudor DT, Randerso P (2003) Beach litter sourcing in the Bristol Channel and Wales, U.K. Water Air Soil Poll 143:387–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams AT, Randerson PR, Alharbi O (2014) From a millennium base line to 2012: beach litter changes in Wales. Mar Poll Bull 84:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams AT, Rangel-Buitrago NG, Anfuso G, Cervantes O, Botero CM (2016) Litter impacts on scenery and tourism on the Colombian north Caribbean coast. J Tourism Manag 53:209–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MV, Shmida A (1984) Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. J Ecol 72:1055–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerberg B (2008) Overcoming “analysis paralysis”. Front Ecol Environm 6:505–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Carlo Ricotta (University of Rome, Sapienza), Giuliano Fanelli (University of Tor Vergata, Rome II), Longino Contoli (ex National Research Council, Rome), Luca Luiselli (Demetra s.r.l. and University of Rome III), Alessandro Zocchi provided helpful comments and suggestions to the first draft of the manuscript. We wish to thank also Abdulla-Al-Asif (Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh), William Senior (Universidad Estatal de la Peninsula de Santa Elena, Ecuador), Lucia Fanini (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Anàvyssos, Greece) who responded to a Research Gate’ Question on this topic. We also wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for the useful comments and suggestions that largely improved the first draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ‘Torre Flavia’ LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, via Tiburtina, 691, 00159, Rome, Italy

    Corrado Battisti

  2. Department of Sciences, University of Rome III, viale Marconi, 446, 00146, Rome, Italy

    Manuele Bazzichetto, Gianluca Poeta & Alicia T. R. Acosta

  3. ENEA, CR Casaccia, via Anguillarese, 301, 00060 Santa Maria di Galeria, Rome, Italy

    Loris Pietrelli

Authors
  1. Corrado Battisti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuele Bazzichetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianluca Poeta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Loris Pietrelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alicia T. R. Acosta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corrado Battisti.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 342 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Battisti, C., Bazzichetto, M., Poeta, G. et al. Measuring non-biological diversity using commonly used metrics: Strengths, weaknesses and caveats for their application in beach litter management. J Coast Conserv 21, 303–310 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-017-0505-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-017-0505-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation