The checkerboard score and species distributions

The checkerboard score and species distributions There has been an ongoing controversy over how to decide whether the distribution of species is “random” — i.e., whether it is not greatly different from what it would be if species did not interact. We recently showed (Roberts and Stone (1990)) that in the case of the Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides) avifauna, the number of islands shared by species pairs was incompatible with a “random” null hypothesis. However, it was difficult to determine the causes or direction of the community's exceptionality. In this paper, the latter problem is examined further. We use Diamond's (1975) notion of checkerboard distributions (originally developed as an indicator of competition) and construct a C -score statistic which quantifies “checkerboardedness”. This statistic is based on the way two species might colonise a pair of islands; whenever each species colonises a different island this adds 1 to the C -score. Following Connor and Simberloff (1979) we generate a “control group” of random colonisation patterns (matrices), and use the C -score to determine their checkerboard characteristics. As an alternative mode of enquiry, we make slight alterations to the observed data, repeating this process many times so as to obtain another “control group”. In both cases, when we compare the observed data for the Vanuatu avifauna and the Antillean bat communities with that given by their respective “control group”, we find that these communities have significantly large checkerboard distributions, making implausible the hypothesis that their species distributions are a product of random colonisation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oecologia Springer Journals

The checkerboard score and species distributions

Oecologia, Volume 85 (1) – Nov 1, 1990

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-checkerboard-score-and-species-distributions-FsofMnx0su
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by Springer-Verlag
Subject
Life Sciences; Ecology; Plant Sciences
ISSN
0029-8549
eISSN
1432-1939
DOI
10.1007/BF00317345
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

There has been an ongoing controversy over how to decide whether the distribution of species is “random” — i.e., whether it is not greatly different from what it would be if species did not interact. We recently showed (Roberts and Stone (1990)) that in the case of the Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides) avifauna, the number of islands shared by species pairs was incompatible with a “random” null hypothesis. However, it was difficult to determine the causes or direction of the community's exceptionality. In this paper, the latter problem is examined further. We use Diamond's (1975) notion of checkerboard distributions (originally developed as an indicator of competition) and construct a C -score statistic which quantifies “checkerboardedness”. This statistic is based on the way two species might colonise a pair of islands; whenever each species colonises a different island this adds 1 to the C -score. Following Connor and Simberloff (1979) we generate a “control group” of random colonisation patterns (matrices), and use the C -score to determine their checkerboard characteristics. As an alternative mode of enquiry, we make slight alterations to the observed data, repeating this process many times so as to obtain another “control group”. In both cases, when we compare the observed data for the Vanuatu avifauna and the Antillean bat communities with that given by their respective “control group”, we find that these communities have significantly large checkerboard distributions, making implausible the hypothesis that their species distributions are a product of random colonisation.

Journal

OecologiaSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 1, 1990

There are no references for this article.

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