The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness

Aim Beta diversity can be partitioned into two components: dissimilarity due to species replacement and dissimilarity due to nestedness (Baselga, 2010, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 134–143). Several contributions have challenged this approach or proposed alternative frameworks. Here, I review the concepts and methods used in these recent contributions, with the aim of clarifying: (1) the rationale behind the partitioning of beta diversity into species replacement and nestedness-resultant dissimilarity, (2) how, based on this rationale, numerators and denominators of indices have to match, and (3) how nestedness and nestednessresultant dissimilarity are related but different concepts. Innovation The rationale behind measures of species replacement (turnover) dictates that the number of species that are replaced between sites (numerator of the index) has to be relativized with respect to the total number of species that could potentially be replaced (denominator). However, a recently proposed partition of Jaccard dissimilarity fails to do this. In consequence, this partition underestimates the contribution of species replacement and overestimates the contribution of richness differences to total dissimilarity. I show how Jaccard dissimilarity can be partitioned into meaningful turnover and nestedness components, and extend these new indices to multiple-site situations. Finally the concepts of nestedness and nestedness-resultant dissimilarity are discussed. Main conclusions Nestedness should be assessed using consistent measures that depend both on paired overlap and matrix filling, e.g. NODF, whereas beta-diversity patterns should be examined using measures that allow the total dissimilarity to be separated into the components of dissimilarity due to species replacement and dissimilarity due to nestedness. In the case of multiple-site dissimilarity patterns, averaged pairwise indices should never be used because the mean of the pairwise values is unable to accurately reflect the multiple-site attributes of dissimilarity.

[1]  W. Ulrich,et al.  Rethinking the relationship between nestedness and beta diversity: a comment on Baselga (2010) , 2012 .

[2]  P. Cardoso,et al.  Determining the relative roles of species replacement and species richness differences in generating beta‐diversity patterns , 2012 .

[3]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Climatic history and dispersal ability explain the relative importance of turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity , 2012 .

[4]  Dénes Schmera,et al.  A new conceptual and methodological framework for exploring and explaining pattern in presence – absence data , 2011 .

[5]  J. Lobo,et al.  Ice age climate, evolutionary constraints and diversity patterns of European dung beetles. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[6]  Thierry Oberdorff,et al.  Partitioning global patterns of freshwater fish beta diversity reveals contrasting signatures of past climate changes. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[7]  J. Svenning,et al.  Climate, history and neutrality as drivers of mammal beta diversity in Europe: insights from multiscale deconstruction. , 2011, The Journal of animal ecology.

[8]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[9]  H. Tuomisto.  A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity , 2010 .

[10]  A. Baselga.  Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity , 2010 .

[11]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  A consumer's guide to nestedness analysis , 2009 .

[12]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement , 2008 .

[13]  Alberto Jiménez-Valverde,et al.  A multiple-site similarity measure independent of richness , 2007, Biology Letters.

[14]  L. Jost.  Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. , 2007, Ecology.

[15]  Robert I. McDonald,et al.  The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities , 2007 .

[16]  Frode Ødegaard,et al.  A multiple-site similarity measure , 2007, Biology Letters.

[17]  J. Reeves,et al.  On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages , 1992, Oecologia.

[18]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data , 2003 .

[19]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale , 2001 .

[20]  K. Gaston,et al.  Pattern and Process in Macroecology , 2000 .

[21]  P. Williams.  Mapping variations in the strength and breadth of biogeographic transition zones using species turnover , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  John H. Lawton,et al.  Beta diversity on geographic gradients in Britain , 1992 .

[23]  R. Whittaker.  Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California , 1960 .

[24]  T. Sørensen,et al.  A method of establishing group of equal amplitude in plant sociobiology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons , 1948 .

[25]  George Gaylord Simpson,et al.  Mammals and the nature of continents , 1943 .

[26]  P. Jaccard.  THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORA IN THE ALPINE ZONE.1 , 1912 .