Beta diversity explained

In ecology, beta diversity (β-diversity or true beta diversity) is the ratio between regional and local species diversity. The term was introduced by R. H. Whittaker[1] together with the terms alpha diversity (α-diversity) and gamma diversity (γ-diversity). The idea was that the total species diversity in a landscape (γ) is determined by two different things: the mean species diversity at the local level (α) and the differentiation among local sites (β). Other formulations for beta diversity include "absolute species turnover", "Whittaker's species turnover" and "proportional species turnover".

Whittaker proposed several ways of quantifying differentiation, and subsequent generations of ecologists have invented more. As a result, there are now many defined types of beta diversity.[2] [3] Some use beta diversity to refer to any of several indices related to compositional heterogeneity.[4] [5] [6] Confusion is avoided by using distinct names for other formulations.[7] [8] [9] [10]

Beta diversity as a measure of species turnover overemphasizes the role of rare species as the difference in species composition between two sites or communities is likely reflecting the presence and absence of some rare species in the assemblages. Beta diversity can also be a measure of nestedness, which occurs when species assemblages in species-poor sites are a subset of the assemblages in more species-rich sites.[11] Moreover, pairwise beta diversity are inadequate in building all biodiversity partitions (some partitions in a Venn diagram of 3 or more sites cannot be expressed by alpha and beta diversity). Consequently, some macroecological and community patterns cannot be fully expressed by alpha and beta diversity. Due to these two reasons, a new way of measuring species turnover, coined Zeta diversity (ζ-diversity),[12] has been proposed and used to connect all existing incidence-based biodiversity patterns.

Types

Whittaker beta diversity

Gamma diversity and alpha diversity can be calculated directly from species inventory data.[13] The simplest of Whittaker's original definitions of beta diversity is

β = γ/α

Here gamma diversity is the total species diversity of a landscape and alpha diversity is the mean species diversity per site. Because the limits among local sites and landscapes are diffuse and to some degree subjective, it has been proposed that gamma diversity can be quantified for any inventory dataset and that alpha and beta diversity can be quantified whenever the dataset is divided into subunits. Then gamma diversity is the total species diversity in the dataset and alpha diversity the mean species diversity per subunit. Beta diversity quantifies how many subunits there would be if the total species diversity of the dataset and the mean species diversity per subunit remained the same, but the subunits shared no species.

Absolute species turnover

Some researchers have preferred to partition gamma diversity into additive rather than multiplicative components.[14] [15] Then the beta component of diversity becomes

βA = γ - α

This quantifies how much more species diversity the entire dataset contains than an average subunit within the dataset. This can also be interpreted as the total amount of species turnover among the subunits in the dataset.

When there are two subunits, and presence-absence data are used, this can be calculated with the following equation:

\betaA=(S1-c)+(S2-c)

[16]

where, S1= the total number of species recorded in the first community, S2= the total number of species recorded in the second community, and c= the number of species common to both communities.

Whittaker's species turnover

If absolute species turnover is divided by alpha diversity, a measure is obtained that quantifies how many times the species composition changes completely among the subunits of the dataset. This measure was proposed by Whittaker,[17] so it has been called Whittaker's species turnover. It is calculated as

βW = (γ - α)/α = γ/α - 1

When there are two subunits, and presence-absence data are used, this equals the one-complement of the Sørensen similarity index.[18]

Proportional species turnover

If absolute species turnover is divided by gamma diversity, a measure is obtained that quantifies what proportion of the species diversity in the dataset is not contained in an average subunit. It is calculated as

βP = (γ - α)/γ = 1 - α/γ

When there are two subunits, and presence-absence data are used, this measure as ranged to the interval [0, 1] equals the one-complement of the Jaccard similarity index.

β-diversity patterns

Although understanding the change in species composition from local to regional scales (β-diversity) is a central theme in ecology and biogeography, studies often reached different conclusions as to the fundamental patterns in β-diversity. For example, niche compression hypothesis predicted higher β-diversity at lower latitudes.[19] [20] [21] [22] Studies comparing natural local sites with human-modified local sites are no different. Kitching et al.[23] sampled moths in primary and logged forests of Danum valley, Borneo to show that β-diversity in primary forests was higher than logged forests. Contrastingly, Berry et al.[24] sampled trees in the same study area to show that β-diversity in logged forests was higher than primary forests. The results of these two studies were completely different from the results of a recent quantitative synthesis,[25] which showed that β-diversity in primary forests were similar to β-diversity in all types of human-modified local sites (secondary forests, plantations, pasture and urban). Therefore, there is a clear lack of consensus on β-diversity patterns among studies. Sreekar et al. suggested that most of these inconsistencies were due to the differences in grain size and/or spatial extent among studies. They showed that spatial scale changes the relationship between β-diversity and latitude.

Diversity partitioning in the geologic past

Major diversification events in the geologic past were associated with shifts in the relative contributions of alpha- and beta-diversity (diversity partitioning). Examples include the Cambrian explosion,[26] the great Ordovician biodiversification event,[27] and the recoveries from the end-Permian[28] and end-Triassic[29] mass extinction events. Empirical data from these case studies confirm theoretical predictions that an increasing number of species will increase beta-diversity relative to alpha diversity because of the effects from interspecific competition; yet, alpha diversity may increase again once options for increasing geographic turnover are exhausted.[30]

See also

Notes and References

  1. Whittaker RH . 1960 . Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. . Ecological Monographs . 30 . 3 . 279–338 . 10.2307/1943563 . 1943563 . 1960EcoM...30..279W .
  2. Tuomisto H . 2010 . A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. . Ecography . 33 . 1 . 2–22 . 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05880.x . 2010Ecogr..33....2T .
  3. Tuomisto H . 2010 . A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. . Ecography . 33 . 1 . 23–45 . 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06148.x. 2010Ecogr..33...23T . free .
  4. Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ . 2003 . Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. . Journal of Animal Ecology . 72 . 3 . 367–382 . 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00710.x . 2003JAnEc..72..367K .
  5. Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend M, Inouye BD, Freestone AL, Sanders NJ, Cornell HV, Comita LS, Davies KF, Harrison SP, Kraft NJ, Stegen JC, Swenson NG . 6 . Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist . Ecology Letters . 14 . 1 . 19–28 . January 2011 . 21070562 . 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01552.x . 2011EcolL..14...19A . free .
  6. Gorelick R . Commentary: Do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? The fallacy of true diversity . Oecologia . 167 . 4 . 885–8; discussion 903–11 . December 2011 . 21947497 . 10.1007/s00442-011-2124-8 . 2011Oecol.167..885G . 6244637 .
  7. Tuomisto, H. 2010. A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 4: 853–860.
  8. Jurasinski G, Koch M . Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? We are on the way . Oecologia . 167 . 4 . 893–902; discussion 903–11 . December 2011 . 21938639 . 10.1007/s00442-011-2126-6 . 2011Oecol.167..893J . 24562429 .
  9. Moreno CE, Rodríguez P . Commentary: Do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? Back to basics and toward a unifying framework . Oecologia . 167 . 4 . 889–92; discussion 903–11 . December 2011 . 21965142 . 10.1007/s00442-011-2125-7 . 2011Oecol.167..889M . 8917573 .
  10. Tuomisto H . Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? Yes, if we choose to use it. . Oecologia . 2011 . 167 . 4 . 903–911 . 10.1007/s00442-011-2128-4 . 2011Oecol.167..903T . 19271108 .
  11. Baselga A . January 2010 . Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography. en. 19. 1. 134–143. 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.x. 2010GloEB..19..134B . 1466-8238. free.
  12. Hui C, McGeoch MA . 2014 . Zeta diversity as a concept and metric that unifies incidence-based biodiversity patterns. . American Naturalist . 184 . 5 . 684–694 . 10.1086/678125 . 25325751 . 10019.1/98200 . 24693167 . free .
  13. Chao A, Chiu CH, Jost L . Phylogenetic diversity measures based on Hill numbers . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences . 365 . 1558 . 3599–609 . November 2010 . 20980309 . 2982003 . 10.1098/rstb.2010.0272 .
  14. Lande R . Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. . Oikos . May 1996 . 1 . 1 . 5–13 . 10.2307/3545743 . 3545743 . 1996Oikos..76....5L .
  15. Veech JA, Summerville KS, Crist TO, Gering JC . The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. . Oikos . October 2002 . 99 . 1 . 3–9 . 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990101.x . 2002Oikos..99....3V .
  16. Book: James S. . Albert . Roberto E. . Reis . vanc . Historical Biogeography of Neotropical Freshwater Fishes. 8 March 2011 . 28 June 2011 . University of California Press. 978-0-520-26868-5. 308.
  17. Whittaker RH . 1972 . Evolution and measurement of species diversity. . Taxon . 21 . 2–3 . 213–251 . 10.2307/1218190 . 1218190 .
  18. Sørensen TA . 1948 . A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content, and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. . Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Biologiske Skrifter . 5 . 1–34 .
  19. MacArthur RH . Patterns of species diversity. . Biological Reviews . November 1965 . 40 . 4 . 510–33 . 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1965.tb00815.x . 86777476 .
  20. Koleff P, Lennon JJ, Gaston KJ . Are there latitudinal gradients in species turnover? . Global Ecology and Biogeography . November 2003 . 12 . 6 . 483–98 . 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00056.x . 2003GloEB..12..483K .
  21. Kraft NJ, Comita LS, Chase JM, Sanders NJ, Swenson NG, Crist TO, Stegen JC, Vellend M, Boyle B, Anderson MJ, Cornell HV, Davies KF, Freestone AL, Inouye BD, Harrison SP, Myers JA . 6 . Disentangling the drivers of β diversity along latitudinal and elevational gradients . Science . New York, N.Y. . 333 . 6050 . 1755–8 . September 2011 . 21940897 . 10.1126/science.1208584 . 2011Sci...333.1755K . 206535334 .
  22. Qian H, Chen S, Mao L, Ouyang Z . Drivers of β-diversity along latitudinal gradients revisited. . Global Ecology and Biogeography . June 2013 . 22 . 6 . 659–70 . 10.1111/geb.12020 . 2013GloEB..22..659Q .
  23. Kitching RL, Ashton LA, Nakamura A, Whitaker T, Khen CV . Distance-driven species turnover in Bornean rainforests: homogeneity and heterogeneity in primary and post-logging forests. . Ecography . June 2013 . 36 . 6 . 675–82 . 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.00023.x . 2013Ecogr..36..675K . 10072/57312 . free .
  24. Berry NJ, Phillips OL, Ong RC, Hamer KC . Impacts of selective logging on tree diversity across a rainforest landscape: the importance of spatial scale. . Landscape Ecology . October 2008 . 23 . 8 . 915–29 . 10.1007/s10980-008-9248-1 . 38892245 .
  25. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Gray CL, Scharlemann JP, Börger L, Phillips HR, Sheil D, Lysenko I, Purvis A . 6 . Global patterns of terrestrial assemblage turnover within and among land uses. . Ecography . December 2016 . 39 . 12 . 1151–63 . 10.1111/ecog.01932 . 2016Ecogr..39.1151N . free . 10044/1/32808 . free .
  26. Na L, Kiessling W . Diversity partitioning during the Cambrian radiation . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 112 . 15 . 4702–6 . April 2015 . 25825755 . 4403203 . 10.1073/pnas.1424985112 . 2015PNAS..112.4702N . free .
  27. Sepkoski JJ . Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go? . Paleobiology . 14 . 3 . 221–34 . 1988 . 11542147 . 10.1017/s0094837300011969 . 1988Pbio...14..221S . 2826581 .
  28. Hofmann R, Hautmann M, Bucher H . 2017-10-03. Diversity partitioning in Permian and Early Triassic benthic ecosystems of the Western USA: a comparison . Historical Biology. en. 29. 7. 918–930 . 10.1080/08912963.2016.1263626 . 2017HBio...29..918H . 132194066.
  29. Hautmann M . 2016. Diversity partitioning in Jurassic level-bottom communities . Historical Biology. en. 28. 6. 849–857. 10.1080/08912963.2015.1051482 . 2016HBio...28..849H . 85880638.
  30. Hautmann. Michael . vanc . 2014. Diversification and diversity partitioning . Paleobiology. en. 40. 2. 162–176. 10.1666/13041 . 86225708 .

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Beta diversity".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.