Shimadzu Hideyasu
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK.
J Math Biol. 2018 Nov;77(5):1363-1381. doi: 10.1007/s00285-018-1255-5. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
Changes in biodiversity today shape the future patterns of biodiversity. This fact underlines the importance of understanding changes in biodiversity through time and space. The number of species, known as species richness, has long been studied as a key indicator that quantifies the state of biodiversity, and standardisation techniques, called rarefaction, have also been used to undertake a fair comparison of the richness observed at different times or locations. The present study asks whether utilising different rarefaction techniques attains comparable results when investigating changes in species richness. The study framework presents the statistical nature of two commonly adopted rarefaction techniques: size-based and coverage-based rarefaction. The key finding is that the rarefied richness results calculated by these two different rarefaction methods reflect different aspects of biodiversity change, the shift in community size and/or composition. This fact illuminates that richness analyses based on different rarefaction techniques can reach different conclusions that may be contradictory. The study also investigates the mechanism creating such divergence. As such, special care is required when evaluating biodiversity change using species richness as an indicator.
如今生物多样性的变化塑造着未来生物多样性的格局。这一事实凸显了通过时间和空间来理解生物多样性变化的重要性。物种数量,即物种丰富度,长期以来一直被作为量化生物多样性状态的关键指标进行研究,而称为稀疏化的标准化技术也被用于对在不同时间或地点观察到的丰富度进行公平比较。本研究探讨在调查物种丰富度变化时,使用不同的稀疏化技术是否能获得可比的结果。研究框架呈现了两种常用稀疏化技术的统计学本质:基于大小的稀疏化和基于覆盖率的稀疏化。关键发现是,这两种不同稀疏化方法计算出的稀疏丰富度结果反映了生物多样性变化的不同方面,即群落大小和/或组成的变化。这一事实表明,基于不同稀疏化技术的丰富度分析可能得出相互矛盾的不同结论。该研究还调查了产生这种差异的机制。因此,在以物种丰富度为指标评估生物多样性变化时需要格外谨慎。