The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring diversity: the importance of species similarity
Open accessAbstract
Realistic measures of biodiversity should reflect not only the relative abundances of species, but also the differences between them. We present a natural family of diversity measures taking both factors into account. This is not just another addition to the already long list of diversity indices. Instead, a single formula subsumes many of the most popular indices, including Shannon's, Simpson's, species richness, and Rao's quadratic entropy. These popular indices can then be used and understood in a unified way, and the relationships between them are made plain. The new measures are, moreover, effective numbers, so that percentage changes and ratio comparisons of diversity value are meaningful. We advocate the use of diversity profiles, which provide a faithful graphical representation of the shape of a community; they show how the perceived diversity changes as the emphasis shifts from rare to common species. Communities can usefully be compared by comparing their diversity profiles. We show by example that this is a far more subtle method than any relying on a single statistic. Some ecologists view diversity indices with suspicion, questioning whether they are biologically meaningful. By dropping the naive assumption that distinct species have nothing in common, working with effective numbers, and using diversity profiles, we arrive at a system of diversity measurement that should lay much of this suspicion to rest.
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
SIMPSON, E. H. (1949) · Nature · doi:10.1038/163688a0 · Cited by 14,164
Genetic Distance between Populations
Nei, M. (1972) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282771 · Cited by 9,731
Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics
Tsallis, C. (1988) · Journal of Statistical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf01016429 · Cited by 9,589
A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins
Turnbaugh, P. J., Hamady, M., Yatsunenko, T., Cantarel, B. L., Duncan, A., Ley, R. E., Sogin, M. L., Jones, W. J., Roe, B. A., Affourtit, J. P., et al. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07540 · Cited by 7,823
Diversity and Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences
Hill, M. O. (1973) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1934352 · Cited by 6,344
Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity
Faith, D. P. (1992) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3 · Cited by 5,693
EVOLUTION AND MEASUREMENT OF SPECIES DIVERSITY
Whittaker, R. H. (1972) · TAXON · doi:10.2307/1218190 · Cited by 5,445
Jost, L. (2006) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14714.x · Cited by 4,669
The Nonconcept of Species Diversity: A Critique and Alternative Parameters
Hurlbert, S. H. (1971) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1934145 · Cited by 4,183
On Measures of Entropy and Information
Rényi, A. (1961) · Project Euclid (Cornell University) · Cited by 4,031
Cited by
Greiff, V., Bhat, P., Cook, S. C., Menzel, U., Kang, W., & Reddy, S. T. (2015) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0169-8 · Cited by 181
Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect pollinators
Saunders, M. E., Luck, G. W., & Mayfield, M. M. (2013) · Journal of Insect Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10841-013-9584-6 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Leinster, T., & Cobbold, C. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 477-489
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2144063472
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 16.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Measuring diversity: the importance of species similarity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/10-2402.1
- The paper
- Leinster, T., & Cobbold, C. A. (2012). Measuring diversity: the importance of species similarity. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2402.1
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.