Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis.

By Hanna Tuomisto, Kalle Ruokolainen. Ecology, 2006

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e2fe4b19ffb909e5e6e0bc339690180ac6006eb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena (2010, methodology): “The number of half-change units represents a higher level of abstraction than the previous beta diversity measures, namely level 3 (Tuomisto and Ruokolainen 2006, 2008).”
Patterns of elevational beta diversity in micro‐ and macroorganisms (2012, methodology): “We thus used both the distancebased approach and the raw data approach in the paper as they may give additional insights into the data, reflecting different aspects of beta diversity (Tuomisto & Ruokolainen, 2006).”
Disentangling the spatial patterns in community composition of prokaryotic and eukaryotic lake plankton (2011, methodology): “This distance-based approach is highly efficient in analyzing spatial patterns in community similarity, i.e., beta diversity (Tuomisto and Ruokolainen 2006).”
Variation partitioning in ecological communities: Do the numbers add up? (2010, methodology): “Regardless of the philosophicalmerits of distance-based or raw-data basedmethods for testingbeta diversity (Legendre,Borcard & Peres-Neto 2005; Tuomisto & Ruokolainen 2006), it is clear that correlations based on distance matrices are inferior to 2010 The Authors.”
Determinants of species richness, endemism and turnover in European longhorn beetles (2008, background): “2005) or the variation in beta diversity (Tuomisto and Ruokolainen 2006).”
Stochastic Community Assembly: Does It Matter in Microbial Ecology? (2017, methodology): “This type of approach was referred to as DIST (158, 163, 164).”
Impacts of agricultural intensification on bird communities: New insights from a multi-level and multi-facet approach of biodiversity (2016, methodology): “To analyse the relationships between beta diversity components and environmental gradients (Tuomisto and Ruokolainen, 2006), Multiple Regressions were performed on distance Matrices (MRM; Legendre et al.”
Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. (2011, background): “However, the estimated variance of the dissimilarity values, namely, r̂2d ¼ 1ðm 1Þ P i; j<i ðdij dÞ 2 (Tuomisto & Ruokolainen 2006) is not an interpretable measure of b diversity.”
Relative roles of niche and neutral processes in structuring a soil microbial community (2010, methodology): “dispersal limitation) and environmental factors on regulating AM fungal community composition and structure; partitioning of b-diversity based on raw species abundance data and Mantel tests based on distance dissimilarity matrices (Legendre et al., 2005; Tuomisto and Ruokolainen, 2006).”
Using subsets of species in biodiversity surveys (2007, methodology): “Rather than employ a distance-based method of ordination, here we look directly at the raw dissimilarities between each pair of sites, which are themselves the focus of analysis in many studies ( Tuomisto & Ruokolainen 2006 ).”
Control of stream insect assemblages: roles of spatial configuration and local environmental factors (2008, methodology): “…and regression of distance matrices have recently been suggested to provide complementary information to constrained ordination and be the methods of choice when testing for the assumption of neutral theory in terms of the distance decay of community similarity ( Tuomisto & Ruokolainen, 2006 ).”