IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v424y2020ics0304380020300922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating and comparing biodiversity with a single universal metric

Author

Listed:
  • Cazzolla Gatti, Roberto
  • Amoroso, Nicola
  • Monaco, Alfonso

Abstract

The development of a unique index to represent the real diversity of a community is still a challenge. The difficulties to find a single, reliable, diversity metric is mostly due to the fact that the indices allowing an estimation of the number of species actually present in a sample do not provide information on how species abundances are distributed within a community. Although some diversity measures attempted to weigh richness in relation to the total abundance, the homogeneity (evenness) of individuals within species is not integrated into them. The most common diversity indices have been "summarized" by Hill in 1973 in a single equation and, subsequently, different indicators have been proposed to estimate the "absolute" and the “effective” number of species present in a study area in an attempt to find a unified treatment of all standard diversity indices and to compare the true diversity among community. However, the choice of one of the effective number of species indices depends on what aspects of diversity of the study sites the research aims to investigate and could bias the study and mislead the interpretation of the comparative results. Moreover, effective Hill numbers account for only the observed, and not the expected (i.e. the absolute) diversity of the studied community. To compare and interpret the effective number of species with one single metric and analyze the diversity data with techniques that do not depend on a traditional non-parametric index, we developed an absolute measure of diversity based on the effective number of species and derived from the Hill numbers of order 0, 1, and 2. We tested the new index against previously-proposed absolute diversity estimators and the first three Hill numbers taken alone. We simulated the new index's behavior with different gradients of richness, abundance and evenness and we, finally, empirically tested it on tree communities of three biomes (boreal, temperate and tropical forests) of the United States and on a coral reef community of Cuba. This new index proved to be the first reliable and comparable measure, which combines both the absolute richness and the evenness of a community related to the most used traditional indices in a unique, simple and comprehensive numerical value that would represent the absolute effective diversity (AED) of any biological community.

Suggested Citation

  • Cazzolla Gatti, Roberto & Amoroso, Nicola & Monaco, Alfonso, 2020. "Estimating and comparing biodiversity with a single universal metric," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 424(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:424:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020300922
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020300922
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Chao & Robin L. Chazdon & Robert K. Colwell & Tsung-Jen Shen, 2006. "Abundance-Based Similarity Indices and Their Estimation When There Are Unseen Species in Samples," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 361-371, June.
    2. Gatti, Roberto Cazzolla & Hordijk, Wim & Kauffman, Stuart, 2017. "Biodiversity is autocatalytic," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 346(C), pages 70-76.
    3. Anne E. Magurran & Peter A. Henderson, 2003. "Explaining the excess of rare species in natural species abundance distributions," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6933), pages 714-716, April.
    4. Maria Dornelas & Sean R. Connolly & Terence P. Hughes, 2006. "Coral reef diversity refutes the neutral theory of biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7080), pages 80-82, March.
    5. Andy Purvis & Andy Hector, 2000. "Getting the measure of biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 212-219, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuan Yuan & Stephen T. Buckland & Phil J. Harrison & Sergey Foss & Alison Johnston, 2016. "Using Species Proportions to Quantify Turnover in Biodiversity," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 21(2), pages 363-381, June.
    2. PK Gupta, 2018. "An Assessment of Relative Risks to Human/Ecological Health Biotech Crops versus Other Human Activities," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 1(2), pages 51-62, February.
    3. Menezes, J. & Moura, B., 2022. "Pattern formation and coarsening dynamics in apparent competition models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Pachepsky, Elizaveta & Bown, James L. & Eberst, Alistair & Bausenwein, Ursula & Millard, Peter & Squire, Geoff R. & Crawford, John W., 2007. "Consequences of intraspecific variation for the structure and function of ecological communities Part 2: Linking diversity and function," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 277-285.
    5. Vilenkin, Boris & Chikatunov, Vladimir I. & Pavlíček, Tomáš, 2009. "The pattern of species turnover resulting from stochastic population dynamics: The model and field data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(5), pages 657-661.
    6. Winands, Sarah & Holm-Müller, Karin & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2013. "The biodiversity conservation game with heterogeneous countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-23.
    7. Hopton, Matthew E. & Karunanithi, Arunprakash T. & Garmestani, Ahjond S. & White, Denis & Choate, Jerry R. & Cabezas, Heriberto, 2017. "A supplementary tool to existing approaches for assessing ecosystem community structure," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 64-69.
    8. White, Denis & Rashleigh, Brenda, 2012. "Effects of stream topology on ecological community results from neutral models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 20-24.
    9. Jian Zhang & Michael S. Vogeley & Chaomei Chen, 2011. "Scientometrics of big science: a case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Tenorio, M. & Rangel, E. & Menezes, J., 2022. "Adaptive movement strategy in rock-paper-scissors models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    11. Praveen, K.V. & Aditya, K.S. & Anbukkani, P. & Kumar, P. & Kar A., 2017. "Spatial Diversity in Indian Wheat and its Determinants," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 30(2).
    12. Sokichi Shiro & Ryu Makihara & Masahiro Yamaguchi & Masayuki Kadowaki & Yuichi Saeki, 2023. "Compatibility of adzuki bean (Vigna angularis) and Bradyrhizobium USDA strains, and geographical distribution and community structure on indigenous adzuki bean-nodulating bradyrhizobia in Japan," Plant Protection Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 59(3), pages 217-232.
    13. Menezes, J. & Barbalho, R., 2023. "How multiple weak species jeopardise biodiversity in spatial rock–paper–scissors models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Meinard, Yves & Grill, Philippe, 2011. "The economic valuation of biodiversity as an abstract good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1707-1714, August.
    15. Luca Battisti & Lauranne Pille & Thomas Wachtel & Federica Larcher & Ina Säumel, 2019. "Residential Greenery: State of the Art and Health-Related Ecosystem Services and Disservices in the City of Berlin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Tovo, Anna & Favretti, Marco, 2018. "The distance decay of similarity in tropical rainforests. A spatial point processes analytical formulation," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 78-89.
    17. Stefania Paduano & Isabella Marchesi & Maria Elisabetta Casali & Federica Valeriani & Giuseppina Frezza & Elena Vecchi & Luca Sircana & Vincenzo Romano Spica & Paola Borella & Annalisa Bargellini, 2020. "Characterisation of Microbial Community Associated with Different Disinfection Treatments in Hospital hot Water Networks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Dehuan Li & Wei Sun & Fan Xia & Yixuan Yang & Yujing Xie, 2021. "Can Habitat Quality Index Measured Using the InVEST Model Explain Variations in Bird Diversity in an Urban Area?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    19. Vanessa Gabel & Robert Home & Sibylle Stöckli & Matthias Meier & Matthias Stolze & Ulrich Köpke, 2018. "Evaluating On-Farm Biodiversity: A Comparison of Assessment Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Cazzolla Gatti, Roberto, 2018. "Modelling weed and vine disturbance in tropical forests after selective logging and clearcutting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 375(C), pages 13-19.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:424:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020300922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.