Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity

Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying... Almost half a century after Whittaker (Ecol Monogr 30:279–338, 1960) proposed his influential diversity concept, it is time for a critical reappraisal. Although the terms alpha, beta and gamma diversity introduced by Whittaker have become general textbook knowledge, the concept suffers from several drawbacks. First, alpha and gamma diversity share the same characteristics and are differentiated only by the scale at which they are applied. However, as scale is relative––depending on the organism(s) or ecosystems investigated––this is not a meaningful ecological criterion. Alpha and gamma diversity can instead be grouped together under the term “inventory diversity.” Out of the three levels proposed by Whittaker, beta diversity is the one which receives the most contradictory comments regarding its usefulness (“key concept” vs. “abstruse concept”). Obviously beta diversity means different things to different people. Apart from the large variety of methods used to investigate it, the main reason for this may be different underlying data characteristics. A literature review reveals that the multitude of measures used to assess beta diversity can be sorted into two conceptually different groups. The first group directly takes species distinction into account and compares the similarity of sites (similarity indices, slope of the distance decay relationship, length of the ordination axis, and sum of squares of a species matrix). The second group relates species richness (or other summary diversity measures) of two (or more) different scales to each other (additive and multiplicative partitioning). Due to that important distinction, we suggest that beta diversity should be split into two levels, “differentiation diversity” (first group) and “proportional diversity” (second group). Thus, we propose to use the terms “inventory diversity” for within-sample diversity, “differentiation diversity” for compositional similarity between samples, and “proportional diversity” for the comparison of inventory diversity across spatial and temporal scales. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oecologia Springer Journals

Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/inventory-differentiation-and-proportional-diversity-a-consistent-47O8LdoCBc
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Almost half a century after Whittaker (Ecol Monogr 30:279–338, 1960) proposed his influential diversity concept, it is time for a critical reappraisal. Although the terms alpha, beta and gamma diversity introduced by Whittaker have become general textbook knowledge, the concept suffers from several drawbacks. First, alpha and gamma diversity share the same characteristics and are differentiated only by the scale at which they are applied. However, as scale is relative––depending on the organism(s) or ecosystems investigated––this is not a meaningful ecological criterion. Alpha and gamma diversity can instead be grouped together under the term “inventory diversity.” Out of the three levels proposed by Whittaker, beta diversity is the one which receives the most contradictory comments regarding its usefulness (“key concept” vs. “abstruse concept”). Obviously beta diversity means different things to different people. Apart from the large variety of methods used to investigate it, the main reason for this may be different underlying data characteristics. A literature review reveals that the multitude of measures used to assess beta diversity can be sorted into two conceptually different groups. The first group directly takes species distinction into account and compares the similarity of sites (similarity indices, slope of the distance decay relationship, length of the ordination axis, and sum of squares of a species matrix). The second group relates species richness (or other summary diversity measures) of two (or more) different scales to each other (additive and multiplicative partitioning). Due to that important distinction, we suggest that beta diversity should be split into two levels, “differentiation diversity” (first group) and “proportional diversity” (second group). Thus, we propose to use the terms “inventory diversity” for within-sample diversity, “differentiation diversity” for compositional similarity between samples, and “proportional diversity” for the comparison of inventory diversity across spatial and temporal scales.

Journal

OecologiaSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 25, 2008

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off