Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis.

It has been actively discussed recently what statistical methods are appropriate when one is interested in testing hypotheses about the origin of beta diversity, especially whether one should use the raw-data approach (e.g., canonical analysis such as RDA and CCA) or the distance approach (e.g., Mantel test and multiple regression on distance matrices). Most of the confusion seems to stem from uncertainty as to what is the response variable in the different approaches. Here our aim is to clarify this issue. We also show that, although both the raw-data approach and the distance approach can often be used to address the same ecological hypothesis, they target fundamentally different predictions of those hypotheses. As the two approaches shed light on different aspects of the ecological hypotheses, they should be viewed as complementary rather than alternative ways of analyzing data. However, in some cases only one of the approaches may be appropriate. We argue that S. P. Hubbell's neutral theory can only be tested using the distance approach, because its testable predictions are stated in terms of distances, not in terms of raw data. In all cases, the decision on which method is chosen must be based on which addresses the question at hand, it cannot be based on which provides the highest proportion of explained variance in simulation studies.