The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data
Abstract
Summary: Little consensus has been reached as to general features of spatial variation in beta diversity, a fundamental component of species diversity. This could reflect a genuine lack of simple gradients in beta diversity, or a lack of agreement as to just what constitutes beta diversity. Unfortunately, a large number of approaches have been applied to the investigation of variation in beta diversity, which potentially makes comparisons of the findings difficult. We review 24 measures of beta diversity for presence/absence data (the most frequent form of data to which such measures are applied) that have been employed in the literature, express many of them for the first time in common terms, and compare some of their basic properties. Four groups of measures are distinguished, with a fundamental distinction arising between ‘broad sense’ measures incorporating differences in composition attributable to species richness gradients, and ‘narrow sense’ measures that focus on compositional differences independent of such gradients. On a number of occasions on which the former have been employed in the literature the latter may have been more appropriate, and there are many situations in which consideration of both kinds of measures would be valuable. We particularly recommend (i) considering beta diversity measures in terms of matching/mismatching components (usually denoted a, b and c) and thereby identifying the contribution of different sources of variation in species composition, and (ii) the use of ternary plots to express the relationship between the values of these measures and of the components, and as a way of understanding patterns in beta diversity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How Should Beta-Diversity Inform Biodiversity Conservation?
Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J. J., Kunin, W. E., & Edwards, D. P. (2016) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005 · Cited by 1,414
Interpreting the replacement and richness difference components of beta diversity
Legendre, P. (2014) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12207 · Cited by 1,115
Diet and feeding pattern affect the diurnal dynamics of the gut microbiome
Zarrinpar, A., Chaix, A., Yooseph, S., & Panda, S. (2014) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2014.11.008 · Cited by 926
On defining and quantifying biotic homogenization
Olden, J. D., & Rooney, T. P. (2006) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-822x.2006.00214.x · Cited by 801
Late Quaternary dynamics of arctic biota from ancient environmental genomics
Wang, Y., Pedersen, M. W., Alsos, I. G., De Sanctis, B., Racimo, F., Prohaska, A., Coissac, E., Owens, H. L., Merkel, M. K. F., Fernandez-Guerra, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04016-x · Cited by 211
Wetland creation in agricultural landscapes: Biodiversity benefits on local and regional scales
Thiere, G., Milenkovski, S., Lindgren, P.-E., Sahlén, G., Berglund, O., & Weisner, S. E. B. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.006 · Cited by 207
Boag, T. H., Darroch, S. A. F., & Laflamme, M. (2016) · Paleobiology · doi:10.1017/pab.2016.20 · Cited by 136
Chiu, C.-Y., Chan, Y.-L., Tsai, Y.-S., Chen, S.-A., Wang, C.-J., Chen, K.-F., & Chung, I.-F. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02067-7 · Cited by 84
Compounding human stressors cause major regeneration debt in over half of eastern US forests
Miller, K. M., & McGill, B. J. (2019) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13375 · Cited by 72
Eastern national parks protect greater tree species diversity than unprotected matrix forests
Miller, K. M., McGill, B. J., Mitchell, B. R., Comiskey, J., Dieffenbach, F. W., Matthews, E. R., Perles, S. J., Paul Schmit, J., & Weed, A. S. (2018) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.02.018 · Cited by 22
EcologicalNetworks.jl: analysing ecological networks of species interactions
Poisot, T., Bélisle, Z., Hoebeke, L., Stock, M., & Szefer, P. (2019) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.04310 · Cited by 16
de Oliveira, C. A. C. R., Morais, K. S., de Oliveira, J. P. S., de Oliveira Marques, A., da Silva, A. B. F., da Conceição Palheta, D., & Bentes, B. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-43889-8 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Koleff, P., Gaston, K. J., & Lennon, J. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04-17
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 367-382
- ISSN
- 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2656
- OpenAlex
- W2168603378
- Cited by
- 1,736
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.