The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities
Abstract
Biological similartiy typically decreases with geographical distance. Despite the recent attention to the distance decay relationship, there is no consensus on how the relationship varies across organism groups, geographic gradients and environments. We first conducted a quantitative meta‐analysis of 401 distance decay relationships across a wide range of organisms, ecosystems and geographical gradients, and then united the effects of categorical and continuous variables on the rate of distance decay using a general linear model (GLM). As effect sizes we used the similarity at one km distance (initial similarity) and the distance that halves the similarity from its value at one km distance (halving distance). Both the initial similarity and halving distance were significantly affected by variables characterizing the spatial scale, organism properties, study region and ecosystem concerned. The patterns appear robust as the results of meta‐analysis and GLM only differed in marginal details. According to GLM with Akaike's information criterion, the most parsimonious models explained 55.3 and 37.6% of variance in initial similarity and halving distance, respectively. Across large scales, similarity was decreasing slightly faster at high latitudes than at low latitudes, while small‐scale turnover was higher at low latitudes. We also found significant differences in initial similarity among the realms, with terrestrial systems showing higher small‐scale beta diversity. The decrease in community similarity at large scales was higher among organisms that are actively mobile than among passively dispersed organisms. We conclude that regression of similarity against distance unites several ecological phenomena such as dispersal propensity and environmental structuring, and provides an effective approach for gauging the spatial turnover across sites. We also found that the patterns in beta‐diversity are highly scale‐dependent.
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
Cites
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
Peres, C. A., & Palacios, E. (2007) · Biotropica · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00272.x · Cited by 1,383
Cited by
Biodiversity in a complex world: consolidation and progress in functional biodiversity research
Hillebrand, H., & Matthiessen, B. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01388.x · Cited by 591
Self-citationTurnover of soil bacterial diversity driven by wide-scale environmental heterogeneity
Ranjard, L., Dequiedt, S., Chemidlin Prévost-Bouré, N., Thioulouse, J., Saby, N. P. A., Lelievre, M., Maron, P. A., Morin, F. E. R., Bispo, A., Jolivet, C., et al. (2013) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms2431 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Soininen, J., McDonald, R., & Hillebrand, H.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-12
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2074129003
- Cited by
- 1,058
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.55
- 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: The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.04817.x
- The paper
- Soininen, J., McDonald, R., & Hillebrand, H. (2007). The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.04817.x
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.