Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Species Diversity PDF
Species Diversity PDF
Introduction
Species diversity (sometimes called species heterogene-
ity), a characteristic unique to the community level of
biological organization, is an expression of community
structure. The most useful measures of species diversity
incorporate consideration of both the number of species
(richness) and the distribution of individuals among the
species (evenness). Species Diversity
A community is said to have a high species diversity
if many equally or nearly equally abundant species are
present. On the other hand, if a community is composed
of a very few species, or if only a few species are abun-
dant, then species diversity is low. For example, if a
community had 100 individuals distributed among 10
species, then the maximum possible diversity would
occur if there were 10 individuals in each of the 10 spe-
cies (example A in Table 5B. I). The minimum possible
diversity among 100 individuals would occur if there
were 9 1 individuals belonging to one of the species and
only one individual in each of the other nine species cise), then other taxonomic groups may be used. (For
(example C in Table 5B.1). In the latter case, the typical example. we may speak of genus or family diversity.)
species in the community is relatively rare. so that Patil Indeed, specific identification is not needed for most
and Taillie ( 1982) refer to species diversity as average comparative studies; the individuals collected may
rarity of species within a community and relate diversity simply be identified as taxon 1. taxon 2, and so on, as long
measures to the probability of interspecitic encounters. as such nomenclature is consistent from collection to
High species diversity indicates a highly complex collection. If you want to compare diversity indices of
community, for a greater variety of species allows for a different communities or subcommunities, try to obtain
larger array of species interactions. Thus, population the same-sized sample from each. This is because all
interactions involving energy transfer (food webs), preda- measures of diversity depend to some extent on the num-
tion. competition. and niche apportionment are theoreti- ber of species collected, which depends in turn on sample
cally more complex and varied in a community of high size.
species diversity. This is still the subject of considerable Diversity is usually considered for only certain sub-
discussion; some ecologists have supported the concept communities at a time rather than for an entire ecological
of species diversity as a measure of community stability community. Great differences among organism sizes
(the ability of community structure to be unaffected by make diversity measures difficult to interpret in large-
disturbance of its components), while others have con- scale studies. Thus. we speak of the species diversity of
cluded that there is no simple relationship between birds. insects, or algae, or the species diversity in the soil
diversity and stability. Some ecologists have also used or on tree trunks. Section 2A.8 discusses quantifying the
diversity as an index of the maturity of a community on diversity of habitats. and Section 5B.4 refers to diversity
the premise that communities become more complex and as a measure of niche width.
more stable as they mature. However. this assumption is Section 5A.3 presents the relative-abundance
probably applicable only in certain ecological communi- curve and the lognormal curve, which express the dis-
ties. Diversity in some groups of organisms has been tribution of individuals among species. These plots may
correlated with latitude. climate. productivily, and geo- be used to show species diversity graphically. Typically.
graphy (Schluter and Ricklefs. 1993). The concept of however. it is best to express quantitative measures of
diversity of organisms (biodiversity) is important to the diversity as discussed in Section 5B.2.
field of conservation biology (see Meffe and Carroll, A large number of measures of diversity have been
1997; Primack, 1997). proposed and many are in contemporary use. Of those
On the following pages. we shall discuss species di- mentioned in the next section, we recommend that the
versity, assuming that all individuals in a biological col- student concentrate on the Simpson index (D,, in Section
lection can be identified to species. If such identification 58.2.2) and the information-theoretic indices ( H a n d H',
is not possible or practical (for example. in a class exer- in Section 58.2.3).
178 Analysis of Communities
Table 5B.1 Various Diversity Indices Computed for 2. Measures of Species Diversity
Hypothetical Situations of N Individuals Distributed
among s Species, with n, Individuals in the ith Species.
2.1 Numbers of Species and Individuals The sim-
Examples A, B, and C have identical values of N and
plest measure of species diversity is the number of species
s. Example D has the same s and species distributioti
(s), or the species richness. Several indices of diversity
as A, but with a larger N . Example E has the same N
have been proposed that incorporate both s and N, the
and evenness as e-rumple A, but a smaller s. total number of individuals in all the species; for
(Logarithms used are base 10.)
example, Margalef's index:
Hypothetical Examples
s- l
Species Abundance A B C D E D, = -
log N
S
D,<,= -
log N
s,number of spccics 10 10 10 10 5
N, numbcr of individuals 100 100 100 1000 100
D,, Margalcf divcrsity 4.50 4.50 4.50 3.00 2.00
D,, Glcason divcrsity 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.33 2.50
D,, Mcnhinick divcrsity 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.50 (Menhinick, 1964). But measures such as s, D,,, L),, and
If random sample: Dl,are inadequate because they do not allow us to differ-
I, Simpson dominancc 0.09 0.16 0.83 0. I0 0. I9 entiate between the diversities of different communities
D,, Simpson divcrsity 0.9 I 0.84 0.17 0.90 0.81 having the same s and N. (For instance. examples A, B,
tl,, invcrsc ol' 1 1 1 .OO 6.23 I .I 0 0 9 5.2 1 and C in Table 5B. I are declared equally diverse by such
indices.) And species richness is directly related to
I f entire community: sample size, with larger samples likely to contain more
A.Simpsondominancc 0.10 0.17 0.83 0.10 0.20 species. A good measure of diversity should take into
A,. Simpson divcrsity 0.90 0.83 0.17 0.90 0.80 account both the number of species and the evenness of
6,,invcrsc 01' A 10.00 5.92 1.21 10.00 5.00
occurrence of individuals in the various species.
H. Brillouin diversity 0.02 0.79 0. I8 0.99 0.66
H'. Shannon diversity 1 .OO 0.86 0.22 1 .OO 0.70
S', cqually abundant 10.0 7.2 1.7 10.0 5.0
2.2 Simpson's Index Simpson1 (1949) considered
spccics not only the number of species (s) and the total number
I),,,,,,,maximu~nL), 0 9 I 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.90 0.8 I of individuals (N). but also the proportion of the total
El,, cvcnncss. using I), 1.00 0.92 0. I9 I .OO I .OO that occurs in each species. He showed that if two indi-
tl,,,,, maximum 11, 1 1 .OO 1 1 .OO 1 1 .OO 10.09 5.2 1 viduals are taken at random from a community, the prob-
r,,, cvcnncss, using 11, 1 .OO 0.57 0. l l I .OO I .o() ability that the two will belong to the same species is
1,,,,,,, ~ n a x i ~ ~ 1,
lu~n 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80
E,, cvcnncss. using A, 1 .OO 0.92 0.19 1 .OO 1 .OO
6,,,,,, maximum 6, 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 5.00
e , ~cvcnncss.
, using 6, 1 .OO 5 9 0.12 1 .OO 1 .OO
H,,,,,, maximum H 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.66
J, cvcnncss. using H 1 .OO 0.86 0.20 1 .OO 1 .OO
I - J. dominancc.
using H 0.0 0.14 0.80 0.0 0.0
H,,,,', maximum H ' 1 .OO 1 .OO 1.00 1 .OO 0.70
J'. cvenncss. using H' 1.00 0.86 0.22 1 .OO 1 .00 I Simpson's approach was to apply to ecology a diversity measure
Table 5B.2 A Hypothetical Set of Species Abundance This diversity index is an expression of the number of
Data, Used in the Text to Illustrate the Calculation of times one would have to take pairs of individuals at ran-
Various Diversity Indices. dom from the entire aggregation to find a pair from the
same species. It is also an expression of how many
Relative equally abundant species would have a diversity equal to
Species, Abundance, Abundance,
i ni Pi
that in the observed collection. The index d , is preferable
to D, in comparing collections in which the values of D,
are very close to 1.0 and nearly the same. (For example,
two collections yielding values of D, of 0.96 and 0.98
would give us d , values-with more discrimination-of
25.00 and 50.00, respectively.) Levins ( 1968) proposed
the inverse of Simpson's diversity index as a measure of
niche breadth, but others have since presented measures
The quantity 1 is, therefore, a measure of dominance2
that are preferable for that purpose (see, for example,
(the concentration of N individuals among s species). A
Feinsinger et al., 1981 ).
collection of species with high diversity will have low
Hurlburt (1971) severely criticized most diversity
dominance, and
indices (including those that follow), but praised the
characteristics of the above indices as being biologically
meaningful, with D, referring to the probability of in-
terspecific encounter (which he calls PIE). This is the
namely probability of an individual in the community encounter-
ing a member of another species. He relates this concept
to specific kinds of encounters, such as competition and
predation.
The above considerations of 1, D,, and d , assume that
is a good measure of diversity3(expressing the probability the data at hand are a random sample from a community
of two randomly selected individuals belonging to differ- or subcommunity. There are occasions when this is not
ent species). For the data of Table 5B.2, the case, as when we have data from an entire community
or subcommunity (e.g., a laboratory culture of animals or
scavengers at an animal carcass) rather than from a sam-
ple, or when we do have a sample but it is known to be a
nonrandom representation of a community or subcom-
munity. In such cases, the appropriate Simpson measure
of dominance is
where
" I
g =-=-
N'
An;'
computed itsing base 10 is equivalent 10 a value of
(0.86)(2.3026) = 1.98 using base e.)
- - - - --
To Convert from
respectively, which may also be written as
Toconvertto 2 e 10
A, = I - AP2
and
-3 Table 5B.4 Values of ni log n, (or N log N ) for Use in Equation 16. *
"If values for rl, (or N I largcr than 409 arc nccdcd. consult Lloyd et al. ( 1968) or Zar ( 1974:JOl-404) or usc Appendix D. Table D. I .
182 Analysis of Communities
conveniently used with this equation. For the above data The computation of factorials-such as 6 ! =
from Table 5B.2. (6)(5)(4)(3)(2)= 720-is tedious, and the numbers
typically become unwieldy. Therefore, H is much more
H' = [85 log 85 - (50 log 50 + 25 log 25 conveniently calculated using logarithms:
+ I0 log 10)]/85
H = (log N! - C[log n,!])/N, (20)
with the aid of Table 5B.5. For our Table 5B.2 example,