Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,019

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?

Anderson, Marti J., Walsh, Daniel C. I.·2013·Ecological Monographs

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/12-2010.1

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 2,019

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.