Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 219

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the importance of intraspecific variability for the quantification of functional diversity

Albert, Cécile H., de Bello, Francesco, Boulangeat, Isabelle, Pellet, Gilles, Lavorel, Sandra, Thuiller, Wilfried·2012·Oikos

Abstract

Functional diversity (FD) is a key facet of biodiversity used to address central questions in ecology. Despite recent methodological advances, FD remains a complex concept and no consensus has been reached either on how to quantify it, or on how it influences ecological processes. Here we define FD as the distribution of trait values within a community. When and how to account for intraspecific trait variability (ITV) when measuring FD remains one of the main current debates. It remains however unclear to what extent accounting for population‐level ITV would modify FD quantification and associated conclusions. In this paper, we address two critical questions: (1) How sensitive are different components of FD to the inclusion of population‐level ITV? (2) Does the omission of ITV obscure the understanding of ecological patterns? Using a mixture of empirical data and simulation experiments, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of four commonly used FD indices (community weighted mean traits, functional richness, Rao's quadratic entropy, Petchey and Gaston's FD index) and their relationships with environmental gradients and species richness, by varying both the extent (plasticity or not) and the structure (contingency to environmental gradient due to local adaptation) of population‐level ITV. Our results suggest that ITV may strongly alter the quantification of FD and the detection of ecological patterns. Our analysis highlights that 1) species trait values distributions within communities are crucial to the sensitivity to ITV, 2) ITV structure plays a major role in this sensitivity and 3) different indices are not evenly sensitive to ITV, the single‐trait FD from Petchey and Gaston being the most sensitive among the four metrics tested. We conclude that the effects of intraspecific variability in trait values should be more systematically tested before drawing central conclusions on FD, and suggest the use of simulation studies for such sensitivity analyses.

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.1600-0706.2011.19672.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 219

Metadata

Authors
Albert, C. H., de Bello, F., Boulangeat, I., Pellet, G., Lavorel, S., & Thuiller, W.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-13
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
116-126
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W1978785541
Cited by
219
References
4
FWCI
10.93
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: On the importance of intraspecific variability for the quantification of functional diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19672.x
The paper
Albert, C. H., de Bello, F., Boulangeat, I., Pellet, G., Lavorel, S., & Thuiller, W. (2012). On the importance of intraspecific variability for the quantification of functional diversity. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19672.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.