Heavy-weighting rare species in dissimilarity indices improve recovery of multivariate groups

IF 3.1 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY Ecological Complexity Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ecocom.2021.100925
Adriano Sanches Melo
{"title":"Heavy-weighting rare species in dissimilarity indices improve recovery of multivariate groups","authors":"Adriano Sanches Melo","doi":"10.1016/j.ecocom.2021.100925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Dissimilarity indices differ in the relative weight given to rare species. Heavy-weighting of rare species may be justified in terms of sampling. An index may erroneously estimate high dissimilarity between two identical communities if they are composed of many rare species and the sampling effort is insufficient to observe most of them in both samples. Heavy-weighting of rare species is thought to compensate for this negative bias. I evaluated two quantitative indices that heavy-weight rare species, NNESS (New Normalized Expected Species Shared) and Goodall, and two probability versions of the Sørensen index, one that takes into account shared unseen rare species and the other that does not. They were compared against the widely used Bray-Curtis (or Sørensen quantitative) and the Morisita-Horn. Indices were computed using raw abundance data or coded data that heavy-weight rare species (frequency in sample units, log-transformation and standardization by the maximum abundance within species). Indices were evaluated for their ability to distinguish, using distance-based MANOVA, season-defined (summer, winter) groups of samples of stream macroinvertebrates and groups of samples obtained by simulation. Sørensen corrected for unseen shared species performed poorly in the empirical study and intermediate in the simulations. NNESS was good in the empirical study and intermediate in the simulations. Goodall scored inversely as NNESS, being intermediate in the empirical assessment and very good in the simulations. The Sørensen uncorrected for unseen shared species, Bray-Curtis and the Morisita-Horn presented poor or intermediate results using raw abundance data. Their performance, however, improved consistently using coded data that heavy-weight rare species and made them good or very good. I conclude that heavy-weighting rare species improves the ability to detect multivariate groups. Heavy-weighting of rare species may be achieved either by using specific formulae (NNESS, Goodall) or using coded data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50559,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Complexity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ecocom.2021.100925","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Complexity","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476945X21000180","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Dissimilarity indices differ in the relative weight given to rare species. Heavy-weighting of rare species may be justified in terms of sampling. An index may erroneously estimate high dissimilarity between two identical communities if they are composed of many rare species and the sampling effort is insufficient to observe most of them in both samples. Heavy-weighting of rare species is thought to compensate for this negative bias. I evaluated two quantitative indices that heavy-weight rare species, NNESS (New Normalized Expected Species Shared) and Goodall, and two probability versions of the Sørensen index, one that takes into account shared unseen rare species and the other that does not. They were compared against the widely used Bray-Curtis (or Sørensen quantitative) and the Morisita-Horn. Indices were computed using raw abundance data or coded data that heavy-weight rare species (frequency in sample units, log-transformation and standardization by the maximum abundance within species). Indices were evaluated for their ability to distinguish, using distance-based MANOVA, season-defined (summer, winter) groups of samples of stream macroinvertebrates and groups of samples obtained by simulation. Sørensen corrected for unseen shared species performed poorly in the empirical study and intermediate in the simulations. NNESS was good in the empirical study and intermediate in the simulations. Goodall scored inversely as NNESS, being intermediate in the empirical assessment and very good in the simulations. The Sørensen uncorrected for unseen shared species, Bray-Curtis and the Morisita-Horn presented poor or intermediate results using raw abundance data. Their performance, however, improved consistently using coded data that heavy-weight rare species and made them good or very good. I conclude that heavy-weighting rare species improves the ability to detect multivariate groups. Heavy-weighting of rare species may be achieved either by using specific formulae (NNESS, Goodall) or using coded data.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同指数中权重较大的稀有物种促进了多变量类群的恢复
不同指数对稀有物种的相对权重不同。从抽样的角度来看,对稀有物种的重加权可能是合理的。如果两个相同的群落由许多稀有物种组成,并且采样努力不足以在两个样本中观察到大多数物种,则指数可能会错误地估计它们之间的高度差异。稀有物种的重权重被认为弥补了这种负面偏见。本文评价了权重稀有物种NNESS (New Normalized Expected species Shared)和Goodall两个定量指标,以及Sørensen指数的两个概率版本,其中一个考虑了未共享的稀有物种,另一个不考虑。将它们与广泛使用的Bray-Curtis(或Sørensen定量)和Morisita-Horn进行了比较。利用原始丰度数据或权重稀有物种的编码数据(样本单位频率、对数变换和物种内最大丰度标准化)计算指数。利用基于距离的方差分析(MANOVA)对季节定义(夏季、冬季)的溪流大型无脊椎动物样本组和模拟获得的样本组进行了区分能力评估。Sørensen校正了未见的共享物种,在实证研究中表现不佳,在模拟中表现居中。NNESS在实证研究中表现良好,在模拟中表现中等。古道尔的NNESS得分相反,在经验评估中处于中等水平,在模拟中非常好。Sørensen未对未见的共享物种进行校正,Bray-Curtis和Morisita-Horn使用原始丰度数据给出了较差或中等的结果。然而,它们的性能在使用重稀有物种的编码数据时不断提高,并使它们达到好或非常好。我的结论是,重权重的稀有物种提高了检测多变量群体的能力。通过使用特定公式(NNESS, Goodall)或使用编码数据可以实现稀有物种的重权重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Complexity 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecological Complexity is an international journal devoted to the publication of high quality, peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of biocomplexity in the environment, theoretical ecology, and special issues on topics of current interest. The scope of the journal is wide and interdisciplinary with an integrated and quantitative approach. The journal particularly encourages submission of papers that integrate natural and social processes at appropriately broad spatio-temporal scales. Ecological Complexity will publish research into the following areas: • All aspects of biocomplexity in the environment and theoretical ecology • Ecosystems and biospheres as complex adaptive systems • Self-organization of spatially extended ecosystems • Emergent properties and structures of complex ecosystems • Ecological pattern formation in space and time • The role of biophysical constraints and evolutionary attractors on species assemblages • Ecological scaling (scale invariance, scale covariance and across scale dynamics), allometry, and hierarchy theory • Ecological topology and networks • Studies towards an ecology of complex systems • Complex systems approaches for the study of dynamic human-environment interactions • Using knowledge of nonlinear phenomena to better guide policy development for adaptation strategies and mitigation to environmental change • New tools and methods for studying ecological complexity
期刊最新文献
Enhancing maximum sustainable yield in a patchy prey–predator environment A scale-invariant method for quantifying the regularity of environmental spatial patterns Assessing the ecological complexity and uncertainty of predicting forest ecosystem services under climate change Transitive and intransitive structures in competition-based ecological communities The central importance of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) within plant-bee interaction networks decreases along a Neotropical elevational gradient
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1