Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities

Williams, PH, Humphries, CJ, Vane-Wright, RI·1991·Australian Systematic Botany

Abstract

A definition of biodiversity is adopted that takes account not only of numbers of species, but also of the degrees of difference among them. The most appropriate measure of species differences is likely to be made in terms of genealogical relationships, as embodied in taxonomic classifications. Five new measures of taxonomic diversity are compared with existing measures of species richness and taxonomic root weighting for prioritising areas for the conservation of biodiversity, using as an example some data for 43 bumble bee species of the sibiricus-group. Although certain of the new measures can be shown to perform better than any existing methods, more extensive trials are needed, and further refinements can be anticipated. We conclude that combining species richness with taxonomic diversity to give a single measure inevitably involves compromise, as either component could be maximised in its own right. Nonetheless, the new prioritisation methods are already capable of giving practical results.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/sb9910665

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
Williams, P., Humphries, C., & Vane-Wright, R.
Venue
Australian Systematic Botany
Published
1991-12-01
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
665-679
ISSN
  • 1030-1887 (ISSN-L)
  • 1446-5701
OpenAlex
W2021796694
Cited by
179
References
0
FWCI
15.06
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/sb9910665
The paper
Williams, P., Humphries, C., & Vane-Wright, R. (1991). Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. Australian Systematic Botany. https://doi.org/10.1071/sb9910665

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.