The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Partitioning variation in ecological communities: do the numbers add up?
Abstract
Summary: 1. Statistical tests partitioning community variation into environmental and spatial components have been widely used to test ecological theories and explore the determinants of community structure for applied conservation questions. Despite the wide use of these tests, there is considerable debate about their relative effectiveness. 2. We used simulated communities to evaluate the most commonly employed tests that partition community variation: regression on distance matrices and canonical ordination using a third‐order polynomial, principal components of neighbour matrices (PCNM) or Moran’s eigenvector maps (MEM) to model spatial components. Each test was evaluated under a variety of realistic sampling scenarios. 3. All tests failed to correctly model spatial and environmental components of variation, and in some cases produced biased estimates of the relative importance of components. Regression on distance matrices under‐fit the spatial component, and ordination models consistently under‐fit the environmental component. The PCNM and MEM approaches often produced inflated R2 statistics, apparently as a result of statistical artefacts involving selection of superfluous axes. This problem occurred regardless of the forward‐selection technique used. 4. Both sample configuration and the underlying linear model used to analyse species–environment relationships also revealed strong potential to bias results. 5. Synthesis and applications. Several common applications of variation partitioning in ecology now appear inappropriate. These potentially include decisions for community conservation based on inferred relative strengths of niche and dispersal processes, inferred community responses to climate change, and numerous additional analyses that depend on precise results from multivariate variation‐partitioning techniques. We clarify the appropriate uses of these analyses in research programmes, and outline potential steps to improve them.
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
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data
Legendre, P., & Gallagher, E. D. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100716 · Cited by 5,556
Cited by
Stochastic Community Assembly: Does It Matter in Microbial Ecology?
Zhou, J., & Ning, D. (2017) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00002-17 · Cited by 2,773
Chen, W., Ren, K., Isabwe, A., Chen, H., Liu, M., & Yang, J. (2019) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-019-0749-8 · Cited by 804
The application of metacommunity theory to the management of riverine ecosystems
Patrick, C. J., Anderson, K. E., Brown, B. L., Hawkins, C. P., Metcalfe, A., Saffarinia, P., Siqueira, T., Swan, C. M., Tonkin, J. D., & Yuan, L. L. (2021) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1557 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Gilbert, B., & Bennett, J. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-19
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1071-1082
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2155235681
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.20
- 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: Partitioning variation in ecological communities: do the numbers add up? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01861.x
- The paper
- Gilbert, B., & Bennett, J. R. (2010). Partitioning variation in ecological communities: do the numbers add up? Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01861.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.