Abstract
Meaningful quantification of species diversity requires that both ‘species’ and ‘diversity’ are unambiguously defined. Rigorous rules of nomenclature exist to ensure that each species has a single unique name, but the naming of concepts is much more variable. As a consequence, ‘diversity’ has been defined in so many different ways that its ability to transfer accurate information has been compromised. This problem can be solved by defining ‘diversity’ as the effective number of species (or other types of interest), and using the term ‘true diversity’ to specify that this narrow concept is being used (analogously to using the term ‘true bugs’ when adhering to a narrow circumscription of ‘bugs’). Other measures related to diversity (such as entropies and probabilities) continue to be useful, but they represent different phenomena and should therefore be referred to by different names. Total species diversity in a dataset can be partitioned into two components in several different ways. The components of a specific multiplicative partitioning can be called true alpha diversity and true beta diversity. When the partitioning is done in some other way, the resulting components are different and should be called by other names. For example, the beta component of additive partitioning does not equal true beta diversity, but can logically be called species turnover. All the phenomena that have been called ‘beta diversity’ in the ecological literature have also been called by alternative unique names. Consequently, a consistent terminology is already available; only a general agreement to use it is lacking.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend M, Inouye BD, Freestone AL et al (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28
Baselga A (2010) Multiplicative partition of true diversity yields independent alpha and beta components; additive partition does not. Ecology 91:1974–1981
Gorelick R (2011) Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? The fallacy of true diversity. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2124-8
Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432
Hoffmann S, Hoffmann A (2008) Is there a “true” diversity? Ecol Econ 65:213–215
Hurlbert SH (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577–586
Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375
Jost L (2007) Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:2427–2439
Jost L (2009) Mismeasuring biological diversity: response to Hoffmann and Hoffmann (2008). Ecol Econ 68:925–928
Jost L (2010) Independence of alpha and beta diversities. Ecology 91:1969–1974
Jurasinski G, Koch M (2011) Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? We are on the way. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2126-6
Jurasinski G, Retzer V, Beierkuhnlein C (2009) Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity. Oecologia 159:15–26
Lande R (1996) Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13
Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2005) Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol Monogr 75:435–450
Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2010) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Oecologia 163:282–297
Moreno CE, Rodríguez P (2011) Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? Back to basics and toward a unifying framework. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2125-7
Ricotta C (2010) On beta diversity decomposition: trouble shared is not trouble halved. Ecology 91:1981–1983
Routledge RD (1979) Diversity indices: which ones are admissible? J Theor Biol 76:503–515
Tuomisto H (2010a) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography 33:2–22
Tuomisto H (2010b) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. Ecography 33:23–45
Tuomisto H (2010c) A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 164:853–860
Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2006) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87:2697–2708
Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K (2008) Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Reply. Ecology 89:3244–3256
Veech JA, Crist TO (2010) Toward a unified view of diversity partitioning. Ecology 91:1988–1992
Vellend M (2001) Do commonly used indices of β-diversity measure species turnover? J Veg Sci 12:545–552
Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338
Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251
Wilson MV, Shmida A (1984) Measuring beta diversity with presence–absence data. J Ecol 72:1055–1064
Acknowledgments
I thank Root Gorelick, Gerald Jurasinski, Claudia Moreno, Samuel M. Scheiner, Marti J. Anderson and Kalle Ruokolainen for fruitful discussions that helped focus the present paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Scott Collins.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tuomisto, H. Commentary: do we have a consistent terminology for species diversity? Yes, if we choose to use it. Oecologia 167, 903–911 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2128-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2128-4