The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using null models to disentangle variation in community dissimilarity from variation in α-diversity
Open accessAbstract
β-diversity represents the compositional variation among communities from site-to-site, linking local (α-diversity) and regional (γ-diversity). Researchers often desire to compare values of β-diversity across localities or experimental treatments, and to use this comparison to infer possible mechanisms of community assembly. However, the majority of metrics used to estimate β-diversity, including most dissimilarity metrics (e.g., Jaccard's and Sørenson's dissimilarity index), can vary simply because of changes in the other two diversity components (α or γ-diversity). Here, we overview the utility of taking a null model approach that allows one to discern whether variation in the measured dissimilarity among communities results more from changes in the underlying structure by which communities vary, or instead simply due to difference in α-diversity among localities or experimental treatments. We illustrate one particular approach, originally developed by Raup and Crick (1979) in the paleontological literature, which creates a re-scaled probability metric ranging from −1 to 1, indicating whether local communities are more dissimilar (approaching 1), as dissimilar (approaching 0), or less dissimilar (approaching −1), than expected by random chance. The value of this metric provides some indication of the possible underlying mechanisms of community assembly, in particular the degree to which deterministic processes create communities that deviate from those based on stochastic (null) expectations. We demonstrate the utility of this metric when compared to analyses of Jaccard's dissimilarity index with case studies from disparate empirical systems (coral reefs and freshwater ponds) that differ in the degree to which disturbance altered α-diversity, as well as the selectivity by which disturbance acted on members of the community.
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
Cited by
vegan: Community Ecology Package
Oksanen, J., Simpson, G. L., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O'Hara, R. B., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E., et al. (2001) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.vegan · Cited by 22,615
Stochastic Community Assembly: Does It Matter in Microbial Ecology?
Zhou, J., & Ning, D. (2017) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00002-17 · Cited by 2,773
How Should Beta-Diversity Inform Biodiversity Conservation?
Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J. J., Kunin, W. E., & Edwards, D. P. (2016) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005 · Cited by 1,414
A general framework for quantitatively assessing ecological stochasticity
Ning, D., Deng, Y., Tiedje, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1904623116 · Cited by 1,255
Martínez, I., Stegen, J. C., Maldonado-Gómez, M. X., Eren, A. M., Siba, P. M., Greenhill, A. R., & Walter, J. (2015) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.03.049 · Cited by 576
Metadata
- Authors
- Chase, J. M., Kraft, N. J. B., Smith, K. G., Vellend, M., & Inouye, B. D.
- Venue
- Ecosphere
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- art24
- ISSN
- 2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091354934
- Cited by
- 962
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Using null models to disentangle variation in community dissimilarity from variation in α-diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/es10-00117.1
- The paper
- Chase, J. M., Kraft, N. J. B., Smith, K. G., Vellend, M., & Inouye, B. D. (2011). Using null models to disentangle variation in community dissimilarity from variation in α-diversity. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1890/es10-00117.1
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.