ANALYZING BETA DIVERSITY: PARTITIONING THE SPATIAL VARIATION OF COMMUNITY COMPOSITION DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert H. Whittaker defined beta diversity as the variation in species composition among sites in a geographic area. Beta diversity is a key concept for understanding the functioning of ecosystems, for the conservation of biodiversity, and for ecosystem management. This paper explains how hypotheses about the origin of beta diversity can be tested by partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data (presence– absence or abundance data) with respect to environmental variables and spatial base functions. We compare two statistical methods to accomplish that. The sum‐of‐squares of a community composition data table, which is one possible measure of beta diversity, is correctly partitioned by canonical ordination; hence, canonical partitioning produces correct estimates of the different portions of community composition variation. In recent years, several authors interested in the variation in community composition among sites (beta diversity) have used another method, variation partitioning on distance matrices (Mantel approach). Their results led us to compare the two partitioning approaches, using simulated data generated under hypotheses about the variation of community composition among sites. The theoretical developments and simulation results led to the following observations: (1) the variance of a community composition table is a measure of beta diversity. (2) The variance of a dissimilarity matrix among sites is not the variance of the community composition table nor a measure of beta diversity; hence, partitioning on distance matrices should not be used to study the variation in community composition among sites. (3) In all of our simulations, partitioning on distance matrices underestimated the amount of variation in community composition explained by the raw‐data approach, and (4) the tests of significance had less power than the tests of canonical ordination. Hence, the proper statistical procedure for partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data among environmental and spatial components, and for testing hypotheses about the origin and maintenance of variation in community composition among sites, is canonical partitioning. The Mantel approach is appropriate for testing other hypotheses, such as the variation in beta diversity among groups of sites. Regression on distance matrices is also appropriate for fitting models to similarity decay plots.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".