The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing?
Abstract
ANOSIM, PERMANOVA, and the Mantel test are all resemblance‐based permutation methods widely used in ecology. Here, we report the results of the first simulation study, to our knowledge, specifically designed to examine the effects of heterogeneity of multivariate dispersions on the rejection rates of these tests and on a classical MANOVA test (Pillai's trace). Increasing differences in dispersion among groups were simulated under scenarios of changing sample sizes, correlation structures, error distributions, numbers of variables, and numbers of groups for balanced and unbalanced one‐way designs. The power of these tests to detect environmental impacts or natural large‐scale biogeographic gradients was also compared empirically under simulations based on parameters derived from real ecological data sets. Overall, ANOSIM and the Mantel test were very sensitive to heterogeneity in dispersions, with ANOSIM generally being more sensitive than the Mantel test. In contrast, PERMANOVA and Pillai's trace were largely unaffected by heterogeneity for balanced designs. PERMANOVA was also unaffected by differences in correlation structure, unlike Pillai's trace. For unbalanced designs, however, all of the tests were (1) too liberal when the smaller group had greater dispersion and (2) overly conservative when the larger group had greater dispersion, especially ANOSIM and the Mantel test. For simulations based on real ecological data sets, PERMANOVA was generally, but not always, more powerful than the others to detect changes in community structure, and the Mantel test was usually more powerful than ANOSIM. Both the error distributions and the resemblance measure affected results concerning power. Differences in the underlying construction of these test statistics result in important differences in the nature of the null hypothesis they are testing, their sensitivity to heterogeneity, and their power to detect important changes in ecological communities. For balanced designs, PERMANOVA and PERMDISP can be used to rigorously identify location vs. dispersion effects, respectively, in the space of the chosen resemblance measure. ANOSIM and the Mantel test can be used as more “omnibus” tests, being sensitive to differences in location, dispersion or correlation structure among groups. Unfortunately, none of the tests (PERMANOVA, Mantel, or ANOSIM) behaved reliably for unbalanced designs in the face of heterogeneity.
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
A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance
Anderson, M. J. (2001) · Austral Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x · Cited by 13,828
Self-citationEcologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data
Legendre, P., & Gallagher, E. D. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100716 · Cited by 5,556
Distance‐Based Tests for Homogeneity of Multivariate Dispersions
Anderson, M. J. (2006) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00440.x · Cited by 3,304
Self-citationEdgington, E., Edgington, E., & Onghena, P. (2007) · doi:10.1201/9781420011814 · Cited by 2,030
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543042003237 · Cited by 1,826
NON-NORMALITY AND TESTS ON VARIANCES
BOX, G. E. P. (1953) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/40.3-4.318 · Cited by 1,302
Cited by
Best practices for analysing microbiomes
Knight, R., Vrbanac, A., Taylor, B. C., Aksenov, A., Callewaert, C., Debelius, J., Gonzalez, A., Kosciolek, T., McCall, L.-I., McDonald, D., et al. (2018) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-018-0029-9 · Cited by 2,030
White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic
Bergmann, M., Mützel, S., Primpke, S., Tekman, M. B., Trachsel, J., & Gerdts, G. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1157 · Cited by 1,359
Stunted microbiota and opportunistic pathogen colonization in caesarean-section birth
Shao, Y., Forster, S. C., Tsaliki, E., Vervier, K., Strang, A., Simpson, N., Kumar, N., Stares, M. D., Rodger, A., Brocklehurst, P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1560-1 · Cited by 1,088
Regional variation limits applications of healthy gut microbiome reference ranges and disease models
He, Y., Wu, W., Zheng, H.-M., Li, P., McDonald, D., Sheng, H.-F., Chen, M.-X., Chen, Z.-H., Ji, G.-Y., Zheng, Z.-D.-X., et al. (2018) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0164-x · Cited by 894
Oberbeckmann, S., Osborn, A. M., & Duhaime, M. B. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159289 · Cited by 572
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, M. J., & Walsh, D. C. I.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 557-574
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2117029130
- Cited by
- 2,019
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 46.98
- 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: PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/12-2010.1
- The paper
- Anderson, M. J., & Walsh, D. C. I. (2013). PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing? Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2010.1
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.