On dendrogram-based measures of functional diversity

By János Podani, Dénes Schmera. 2006

267 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3259991b87cebcd05483ba21b299fd4a27849c07

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Quantifying Functional Biodiversity (2011, background): “It is zero only when no species is present (Podani and Schmera 2006).”
More species, but all do the same: contrasting effects of flood disturbance on ground beetle functional and species diversity (2012, background): “As both measures are not independent from species richness, are sensitive to species featuring extreme trait values, and do not integrate species abundances (Podani and Schmera 2006), Laliberté and Legendre (2010) proposed to additionally assess the functional dispersion of a community, which is cal”
A measure for assessing functional diversity in ecological communities (2009, background): “Fifth, in agreement with all existing diversity formulations (except species richness, cf. Magurran 1988), zero diversity is obtained for communities with one species (Podani and Schmera 2006).”
Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity--ecosystem-function relationships. (2011, methodology): “FD requires calculating the multivariate distance between each pair of species based on their functional traits; we used Gower distances to accommodate both the continuous (LMA, %N, height, SRL) and binary data (N fixation; Podani and Schmera 2006).”
Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices (2015, methodology): “This index is highly correlated with the weighting procedure proposed in [43], but has the 258 advantage that instead of building a different dendogram for each community, it builds a single 259 dendrogram for all communities, which is the recommended approach [41].”
Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services (2011, background): “Consensus is also lacking as to how FD should be calculated (e.g. Podani & Schmera 2006; Petchey & Gaston 2007; Villeger, Mason & Mouillot 2008; Poos, Walker & Jackson 2009; Laliberte & Legendre 2010; Mouchet et al. 2010).”
Dendrograms and measuring functional diversity (2007, methodology): “ Podani and Schmera (2006) and others (Mason et al. 2005) suggest that Euclidean distance is an inappropriate distance metric for measuring FD because it is affected by the number of functional traits.”
Little evidence for limiting similarity in a long‐term study of a roadside plant community (2010, methodology): “In addition to FD (Petchey & Gaston 2002, 2006), we also calculated mean dissimilarity (Heemsbergen et al. 2004), Q (Botta-Dukát 2005), and a measure (PS) by Podani & Schmera (2006).”
Marine benthic ecological functioning over decreasing taxonomic richness (2015, methodology): “The methodology has been discussed in terms of advantages and disadvantages especially concerning choices of traits, particular computational decisions and effects of species richness (Mouchet et al., 2010; Podani and Schmera, 2006; Poos et al., 2009).”
Functional richness: Overview of indices and underlying concepts (2018, methodology): “The main issue of the first framework represented by the FDP&G index is that the clustering algorithm used to build the dendrogram arbitrarily affects its final representation and, in consequence, the values of the FDP&G index (Podani & Schmera 2006).”