Community Ecology

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 163–170 | Cite as

Importance of species abundance for assessment of trait composition: an example based on pollinator communities

  • F. de BelloEmail author
  • J. Lepš
  • S. Lavorel
  • M. Moretti


Measurements of trait community composition are known to be sensitive to the way species abundance is assessed, but not to what extent. This was investigated by considering two of the most commonly used indices of community trait composition, trait averages and functional diversity, in bee communities along a post-fire environmental gradient. The indices were computed using three different species abundance measurements (log and unlog number of individuals and species occurrence only) and 5 traits. For certain traits, the responses of the indices to fire varied according to how species abundance was measured. The measurements that took species abundance into account in the most distinct way (e.g., occurrence vs. unlog data) produced the least similar results for all traits. Species were then grouped into different classes on the basis of their relative abundance (i.e., dominants, subdominants, and rare species). As a result, the measure that attaches the highest importance to the abundance of species (unlog data) related mostly to the dominant species traits, while the measure attaching the lowest (i.e., species occurrence) related more to rare species traits. Species diversity was mostly independent of trait averages and functional diversity, regardless of the measure of species abundance used. We also quantified functional redundancy (i.e., the potential minus the observed functional diversity in each community). When more weight was attached to species abundance, redundancy decreased and tended to be less correlated with species diversity. Overall, the way species abundance is taken into consideration in indices of functional composition offers promising insights into the way community assembly mechanisms respond to environmental changes.


Bee Biodiversity Community assembly Dominant and rare species Fire Functional trait Redundancy 



Functional Diversity


Inter-Tegula Distance


Species abundance based on number of individuals with or without logarithmic transformation


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerly, D.D., Knight, C.A., Weiss, S.B., Barton, K. and Starmer, K.P. 2002. Leaf size, specific leaf area and microhabitat distribution of chaparral woody plants: contrasting patterns in species level and community level analyses. Oecologia 130:449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biesmeijer, J.C., Roberts, S.P.M., Reemer, M., Ohlemuller, R., Edwards, M., Peeters, T., Schaffers, A.P., Potts, S.G., Kleukers, R., Thomas, C.D., Settele, J. and Kunin, W.E. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313: 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botta-Dukát, Z. 2005. Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. Journal of Vegetation Science 16:533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cingolani, A.M., Posse, G. and Collantes, M.B. 2005. Plant functional traits, herbivore selectivity and response to sheep grazing in Patagonian steppe grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cingolani, A.M., Cabido, M., Gurvich, D.E., Renison, D., and Diaz, S. 2007. Filtering processes in the assembly of plant communities: are species presence and abundance driven by the same traits? Journal of Vegetation Science 18: 911–920.Google Scholar
  6. de Bello, F., Lepš, J. and Sebastià, M.T. 2006. Variations in species and functional plant diversity along climatic and grazing gradients. Ecography 29:801–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diaz, S., Lavorel, S., Chapin, F.S., Tecco, P.A., Gurvich, D.E. and Grigulis, K. 2007. Functional diversity - at the crossroads between ecosystem functioning and environmental filters. In: Canadell, J., Pataki D.E. and Pitelka L.F. (eds.). Terrestrial Ecosystem in a Changing World. Springer, Berlin. pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
  8. Garnier, E., Cortez, J., Billes, G., Navas, M.L., Roumet, C., Debussche, M., Laurent, G., Blanchard, A., Aubry, D., Bellmann, A., Neil, C. and Toussaint, J. P. 2004. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85:2630–2637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kafer, J. and Witte, J.P.M. 2004. Cover-weighted averaging of indicator values in vegetation analyses. Journal of Vegetation Science 15:647–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kremer, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., Le-Buhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, G.S., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vázquez, D.P., Winfree, R., Adams, L., Crone, E.E., Greenleaf, S.S., Keitt, T.H., Klein, A-M., Regetz, J. and Ricketts, T.H. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters 10:299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., McIntyre, S., Garden, D., Willams, N., Dorrough, J., Berman, S., Quetier, F., Thebault, A. and Bonis, A. (2008) Assessing functional diversity in the field methodology matters! Functional Ecology (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Lepš, J., de Bello, F., Lavorel, S. and Berman, S. 2006. Quantifying and interpreting functional diversity of natural communities: practical considerations matter. Preslia 78:481–501.Google Scholar
  13. Lepš J. and Hadincová V. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analyses? Journal Vegetation Science 3:119–124.Google Scholar
  14. Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Mason, N.W.H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W.G. and Wilson, J.B. 2005. Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111:112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moretti, M., Obrist, M.K. and Duelli, P. 2004. Arthropod biodiversity after forest fires: winners and losers in the winter fire regime of the southern Alps. Ecography 27:173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moretti, M., Duelli, P. and Obrist, M.K. 2006. Biodiversity and resilience of arthropod communities after fire disturbance in temperate forests. Oecologia 149:312–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mühlenberg M. 1993. Freilandökologie. Quelle and Meyer, München.Google Scholar
  19. Naeem, S. 1998. Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Conservation Biology 12:39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Novotny, V. and Basset, Y. 2000. Rare species in communities of tropical insect herbivores: pondering the mystery of singletons. Oikos 89:564–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Petchey, O.L. and Gaston, K.J. 2006. Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecology Letters 9:741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peterson, G., Allen, C.R. and Holling, C.S. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rao, C.R. 1982. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients - a unified approach. Theoretical Population Biology 21: 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Maarel, E. 1979. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effect on community similarity. Vegetatio 38:138–148.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, B., Kinzig, A. and Langridge, J. 1999. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: The nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2:95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whittaker, R.H. 1970. Communities and Ecosystems. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2007

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, 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.Laboratoire d’Ecologie AlpineUniversité Joseph FourierGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South Bohemia, and Institute of Entomology, Czech Academy of SciencesČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Ecosystem Boundaries Research UnitInsubric Ecosystems GroupBellinzonaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations