On the measurement of species diversity incorporating species differences

By K. Shimatani. 2001

131 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a5b42324762686ecb575b7018fe019137bd881a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Quantifying and interpreting functional diversity of natural communities: practical considerations matter (2006, methodology): “The Rao coefficient is very flexible, and can be used with various dissimilarity measures (for example, Shimatani 2001 used it with taxonomic dissimilarity, asymmetrical measures can be also used, etc.).”
Assessing functional diversity in the field - methodology matters! (2007, background): “where s is the number of species in the community (Shimatani 2001).”
The apportionment of quadratic entropy: a useful alternative for partitioning diversity in ecological data (2005, unknown): “Several ecologists have recently rediscovered Rao’s work and have suggested applying quadratic entropy to their particular ecological data (Izsak and Papp, 1995; Watve and Gangal, 1996; Izsak and Papp, 2000; Shimatani, 2001; Champely and Chessel, 2002; Izsak and Szeidl, 2002).”
Variations in species and functional plant diversity along climatic and grazing gradients (2006, methodology): “The species distances dij in this formula have been traditionally applied for species taxonomical differences (Warwick and Clarke 1998, Shimatani 2001, Bhat and Magurran 2006).”
A note on functional diversity measures (2005, methodology): “…in the framework of taxonomic diversity, a number of authors (e.g., Izsák & Papp, 1995, 2000; Warwick & Clarke, 1995, 1998; Clarke & Warwick, 1998; Shimatani, 2001) used an index of diversity similar or identical to Rao’s quadratic entropy (see below) that incorporates both species’ relative…”
Is the originality of a species measurable (2005, unknown): “Close species are partially redundant (Shimatani 2001).”
Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure (2009, background): “Other metrics of phylogenetic diversity (and thus phylogenetic community structure) have also been proposed (Clarke & Warwick 1998; Shimatani 2001; Barker 2002; Ricotta 2004).”
The partitioning of diversity: showing Theseus a way out of the labyrinth (2010, background): “More generally, dij can be expressed using various measures of species differences, e.g. functional or phylogenetic dissimilarity between species (e.g. Shimatani 2001; Pavoine et al. 2004).”
Quantifying Functional Biodiversity (2011, background): “The variance of Râo may be estimated as (Shimatani 2001)”
Characterizing the phylogenetic structure of communities by an additive partitioning of phylogenetic diversity (2007, background): “‡References: (1) Pons & Petit (1996); (2) Chave et al. (in press); (3) Shimatani (2001); (4) Clarke & Warwick (1998); (5) Ganeshaiah et al. (1997); (6) Pavoine et al. (2004, 2005); (7) Webb et al. (2002).”
Changes in four complementary facets of fish diversity in a tropical coastal lagoon after 18 years: a functional interpretation (2005, background): “Nevertheless, species richness or evenness indices do not take into account functional, taxonomic or phylogenetic differences between species, though some authors have pointed out the necessity of including these differences between species to assess diversity (Purvis & Hector 2000, Shimatani 2001).”
Measuring diversity: the importance of species similarity. (2012, background): “Some are genetic (Hughes et al. 2008); others are functional (Botta-Dukát 2005, Petchey and Gaston 2006), taxonomic (Vane-Wright et al. 1991, Warwick and Clarke 1995, Shimatani 2001), morphological (Pavoine et al. 2005), or phylogenetic (Faith 1992, Hardy and Senterre 2007).”
Rao's quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits (2005, methodology): “Effects of the correlation between traits Shimatani (2001) showed that Rao’s quadratic entropy is based on three factors: species diversity (Simpson index), species distinctness and a balance factor, as follows: FDQ = SpDiv * SpDis + BaFac.”
Host introductions and the geography of parasite taxonomic diversity (2003, background): “However, these measures are dependent of sample size (Frontier, 1985; Price et al., 1999) and do not take into account differences between species (morphological, functional, phylogenetic or taxonomic) (Purvis & Hector, 2000; Shimatani, 2001).”
Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach (2011, background): “Regrouping species into higher taxa classification has led to taxonomic diversity estimates that have been used to predict species diversity (Williams & Gaston, 1994) but might incorporate phylogenetic components if the diversity in several taxonomic levels is considered (Shimatani, 2001).”
Correlations between phylogenetic and functional diversity: mathematical artefacts or true ecological and evolutionary processes? (2013, background): “The QE: a function of G, meanD and B indices For quadratic entropy (QE), Shimatani (2001) showed that QE = meanD 9 G + B, where G is the Gini–Simpson index, which depends on species richness (S) and species’ abundances (pi), G ¼ 1 PS i¼1 p 2 i ; B is the covariancelike measure between the…”