Jurasinski Gerald, Retzer Vroni, Beierkuhnlein Carl
Landscape Ecology and Site Evaluation, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059, Rostock, Germany.
Oecologia. 2009 Feb;159(1):15-26. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1190-z. Epub 2008 Oct 25.
Almost half a century after Whittaker (Ecol Monogr 30:279-338, 1960) proposed his influential diversity concept, it is time for a critical reappraisal. Although the terms alpha, beta and gamma diversity introduced by Whittaker have become general textbook knowledge, the concept suffers from several drawbacks. First, alpha and gamma diversity share the same characteristics and are differentiated only by the scale at which they are applied. However, as scale is relative--depending on the organism(s) or ecosystems investigated--this is not a meaningful ecological criterion. Alpha and gamma diversity can instead be grouped together under the term "inventory diversity." Out of the three levels proposed by Whittaker, beta diversity is the one which receives the most contradictory comments regarding its usefulness ("key concept" vs. "abstruse concept"). Obviously beta diversity means different things to different people. Apart from the large variety of methods used to investigate it, the main reason for this may be different underlying data characteristics. A literature review reveals that the multitude of measures used to assess beta diversity can be sorted into two conceptually different groups. The first group directly takes species distinction into account and compares the similarity of sites (similarity indices, slope of the distance decay relationship, length of the ordination axis, and sum of squares of a species matrix). The second group relates species richness (or other summary diversity measures) of two (or more) different scales to each other (additive and multiplicative partitioning). Due to that important distinction, we suggest that beta diversity should be split into two levels, "differentiation diversity" (first group) and "proportional diversity" (second group). Thus, we propose to use the terms "inventory diversity" for within-sample diversity, "differentiation diversity" for compositional similarity between samples, and "proportional diversity" for the comparison of inventory diversity across spatial and temporal scales.
在惠特克(《生态专论》30:279 - 338,1960年)提出其颇具影响力的多样性概念近半个世纪后,现在是进行批判性重新评估的时候了。尽管惠特克引入的α、β和γ多样性术语已成为一般教科书知识,但该概念存在若干缺陷。首先,α多样性和γ多样性具有相同的特征,仅通过应用的尺度来区分。然而,由于尺度是相对的——取决于所研究的生物或生态系统——这并非一个有意义的生态标准。α多样性和γ多样性反而可以归为“清单多样性”这一术语之下。在惠特克提出的三个层次中,β多样性是关于其有用性收到最矛盾评论的一个(“关键概念”与“晦涩概念”)。显然,β多样性对不同的人意味着不同的东西。除了用于研究它的大量方法外,主要原因可能是潜在的数据特征不同。文献综述表明,用于评估β多样性的众多测量方法可分为两个概念上不同的组。第一组直接考虑物种差异并比较地点的相似性(相似性指数、距离衰减关系的斜率、排序轴的长度以及物种矩阵的平方和)。第二组将两个(或更多)不同尺度的物种丰富度(或其他汇总多样性测量)相互关联(加法和乘法划分)。由于这一重要区别,我们建议β多样性应分为两个层次,“分化多样性”(第一组)和“比例多样性”(第二组)。因此,我们建议将样本内多样性称为“清单多样性”,样本间组成相似性称为“分化多样性”,跨空间和时间尺度的清单多样性比较称为“比例多样性”。