Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 79–86 | Cite as

Sensitivity of diversity indices: a study of dipterous assemblages

  • J. IzsákEmail author
  • L. Papp
Article

Abstract

It is an essential property of diversity indices that increases in the abundance or frequency of the most frequent species result in a decline in diversity, whereas increases in the abundance of the rarest species lead to an increase in diversity. At the same time, without resort to mathematical operations, it is difficult to determine the sign and measure of alteration in diversity when increasing an additional frequency while leaving all others unaltered. A more concrete task is to determine the index response to a partial alteration of fixed percentage in the frequencies of the multi-species community or collection. Plotting the observed responses or sensitivity values against the frequencies concerned makes possible a good overview of the sensitivity relations. The mathematical groundwork of sensitivity analysis with respect to diversity indices has already been elaborated. To date, however, the methodological possibilities engendered by such analyses have yet to be exploited.

In the present work, sensitivity relations are discussed for apple-bait Drosophilidae collections and human faeces trap collections of flies inhabiting brook valleys in the low mountains of Hungary. Inspection of the results enables us to identify the range of frequencies at which significant increases or decreases in diversity will result. A relatively small increase of so-called nearly indifferent or quasineutral frequencies lying within that frequency range has a trivial influence on diversity values. While sensitivity is astonishingly sizeable with a few dominant case numbers, all other frequencies scarcely influence the index value.

Keywords

Hill’s indices Hurlbert’s indices Rank - abundance curves Sensitivity parameters Shannon index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boyle, T.P., G. M. Stnillie, J. C. Anderson and D. R. Beeson. 1990. A sensitivity analysis of nine diversity and seven similarity indices. Research Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 62:749–762.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, M.J.R. 1992. Enhancement of the Pielou method for estimating the diversity of aquatic communities. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:1559–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hill, M.O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Izsák, J. 1991. New aspects of sensitivity investigations on diversity indices. A case study. Biometrie unci Informatik in Medizin und Biologie 22:107–115.Google Scholar
  5. Izsák, J. 1992. Sensitivity studies on Hurlbert’s indices of diversity. Biométrie – Praximétrie 32:101–114.Google Scholar
  6. Izsák, J. 1996. Sensitivity profiles of diversity indices. Biometrical J. 38:921–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Izsák, J. 1998. DIVERSI 1.1: A program for diversity calculations. Abstr. Bot. 22:157–160.Google Scholar
  8. Izsák, J. and P. Juhász-Nagy. 1984. Studies of diversity indices on mortality statistics. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio Biologica 24–26:11–27.Google Scholar
  9. Izsák, J. and L. Papp. 1994. Numerical properties of jackknifed diversity indices tested on loose sets of coenological samples (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Coenoses 9:59–61.Google Scholar
  10. Kempton, R.A. 1979. The structure of species abundance and measurement of diversity. Biometrics 35:307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kempton, R.A. and R.W.M. Wedderburn. 1978. A comparison of three measures of species diversity. Biometrics 34:25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Croom Helm Ltd., LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Papp, L. 1992. Drosophilid assemblages in mountain creek valleys in Hungary (Diptera: Drosophilidae) I. Folia Entomologica Hungarica 53:139–153.Google Scholar
  14. Papp, L. 1993a. Flies (Diptera) visiting human faeces in mountain creek valleys in Hungary. Parasitología Hungarica 25:85–96.Google Scholar
  15. Papp, L. 1993b. On the Abundance of Flying Insects (The Theory of Capturing Flies). (in Hungarian) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 46 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Patil, G.P. and C. Taillie 1982. Diversity as a concept and its measurement. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 77:548–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peet, R.K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pielou, E.C. 1979. A quick method of determining the diversity of foraminiferal assemblages. J. Paleontol. 53:1237–1242.Google Scholar
  19. Schmid, F. 1991. Zur Sensitivitat von Disparitätsmassen. Allgemeine Statistisches Archiv 75:155–167.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, W. and Grassle, J.F. 1977. Sampling properties of a family of diversity measures. Biometrics 33:283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taillie, C. and G. P. Patil. 1979. Diversity, entropy, and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. In: I. F. Grassle, G. P. Patil, W. Smith and C. Taillie (eds.), Ecological Diversity in Theory and Practice, Internatl. Coop. Publ. House, Burtonsville, MD, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2001

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Berzsenyi CollegeSzombathelyHungary
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyHungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations