The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference
Abstract
Ecologists often face the task of studying the association between single species and one or several groups of sites representing habitat types, community types, or other categories. Besides characterizing the ecological preference of the species, the strength of the association usually presents a lot of interest for conservation biology, landscape mapping and management, and natural reserve design, among other applications. The indices most frequently employed to assess these relationships are the phi coefficient of association and the indicator value index (IndVal). We compare these two approaches by putting them into a broader framework of related measures, which includes several new indices. We present permutation tests to assess the statistical significance of species–site group associations and bootstrap methods for obtaining confidence intervals. Correlation measures, such as the phi coefficient, are more context‐dependent than indicator values but allow focusing on the preference of the species. In contrast, the two components of an indicator value index directly assess the value of the species as a bioindicator because they can be interpreted as its positive predictive value and sensitivity. Ecologists should select the most appropriate index of association strength according to their objective and then compute confidence intervals to determine the precision of the estimate.
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
Edgington, E., Edgington, E., & Onghena, P. (2007) · doi:10.1201/9781420011814 · Cited by 2,030
Cited by
Distinct soil microbial diversity under long-term organic and conventional farming
Hartmann, M., Frey, B., Mayer, J., Mäder, P., & Widmer, F. (2015) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2014.210 · Cited by 1,496
Wild Mouse Gut Microbiota Promotes Host Fitness and Improves Disease Resistance
Rosshart, S. P., Vassallo, B. G., Angeletti, D., Hutchinson, D. S., Morgan, A. P., Takeda, K., Hickman, H. D., McCulloch, J. A., Badger, J. H., Ajami, N. J., et al. (2017) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.016 · Cited by 862
Early life antibiotic‐driven changes in microbiota enhance susceptibility to allergic asthma
Russell, S. L., Gold, M. J., Hartmann, M., Willing, B. P., Thorson, L., Wlodarska, M., Gill, N., Blanchet, M., Mohn, W. W., McNagny, K. M., et al. (2012) · The EMBO Reports · doi:10.1038/embor.2012.32 · Cited by 883
Maturation of the gut microbiome and risk of asthma in childhood
Stokholm, J., Blaser, M. J., Thorsen, J., Rasmussen, M. A., Waage, J., Vinding, R. K., Schoos, A.-M. M., Kunøe, A., Fink, N. R., Chawes, B. L., et al. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02573-2 · Cited by 614
The Populus holobiont: dissecting the effects of plant niches and genotype on the microbiome
Cregger, M. A., Veach, A. M., Yang, Z. K., Crouch, M. J., Vilgalys, R., Tuskan, G. A., & Schadt, C. W. (2018) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0413-8 · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- Cáceres, M. D., & Legendre, P.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3566-3574
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2028596084
- Cited by
- 4,002
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.75
- 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: Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/08-1823.1
- The paper
- Cáceres, M. D., & Legendre, P. (2009). Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1823.1
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.