Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

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?

Gilbert, Benjamin, Bennett, Joseph R.·2010·Journal of Applied Ecology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01861.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 334

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.