Diversity as a Concept and its Measurement

Patil, G. P.; Taillie, C.

doi:10.1080/01621459.1982.10477845

Cited by 529 publications

(280 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

274

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While species number is a simply defined parameter, Simpson's and Shannon's indexes integrate both species number and the dominance aspect, whereas evenness exclusively refers to equitability of species within stands (Liu 1995). Theoretical considerations (Patil & Taillie 1982, Tóthmérész 1998) and the presented results underline a gradual similarity of these diversity indexes (Neumann & Starlinger 2001). Therefore the number of tree species in combination with evenness may give a rather comprehensive picture of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of tree diversity (Liu 1995, Magurran 2004.…”

Section: Stand Structurementioning

confidence: 81%

Dead wood and stand structure - relationships for forest plots across Europe

Seidling¹,

Travaglini²,

Meyer³

et al. 2014

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Seidling W, Travaglini D, Meyer P, Waldner P, Fischer R, Granke O, Chirici G, Corona P, 2014. Dead wood and stand structure -relationships for forest plots across Europe. iForest 7: 269-281 [online 2014-04-14] URL: http://www.sisef.it/iforest/ contents/? id=ifor1057-007 Communicated by: Enrico MarchiSeidling Environment and Development (UNCED) held in 1992, the concept of sustainable multi-purpose forest management is internationally recognized and fostered. On the European level, the implementation of sustainable forest management by specific criteria and indicators is strongly promoted by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE, now Forest Europe). Within this context, dead wood and certain features of stand structure are recognized as important preconditions for biological diversity of forests at stand level (Schäfer 2001, Larsson 2001, MCPFE 2003. In the last decades, biodiversity-oriented management practices have been proposed to increase the quantity of dead wood and the presence of veteran trees; these include prolonging the rotation period, leaving dead trees in forests or even creating artificial high stumps from living trees (e.g., Jonsell et al. 2004, Ranius et al. 2005, Abrahamsson & Lindbladh 2006, Keeton 2006, Bauhus et al. 2009).Because of its ecological importance and its role in C sequestration, surveys of dead wood have recently been included in most National Forest Inventories (NFIs) and monitoring programmes (e.g., Geburek et al. 2010, Corona et al. 2011, Weggler et al. 2012). However, protocols for dead wood assessment differ among European NFIs, and data are difficult to compare (Herrero et al. 2013). Schuck et al. (2004) analysed inventory methods for 22 countries and found differences among attributes measured, diameter thresholds and sampling design. Furthermore, there is also a need for standardized indices of stand structure, that have been shown by Neumann & Starlinger (2001) to be suitable indicators to asses biodiversityrelated aspects of forest management. Since, similar investigations with the aim of proposing methods for harmonizing results from NFIs and probably adjusting NFIs' field methods have been undertaken. These activities resulted in bridging functions for parameters among NFIs , McRoberts et al. 2009, Woodall et al. 2009, Rondeux et al. 2012.Up to now, the relationships between silviculture, stand structure, dead wood and other aspects of biodiversity have rarely been studied in an integrated manner on a large scale. This study investigates the relationships between dead wood and stand structure based on a survey at 90 intensive monitoring plots across Europe. The survey was carried out in 2004 on plots in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, and Ukraine. The objectives of this large-scale evaluation were to: (i) identify a sets of variables suitable to characterise dead wood structures and a set to characterise stand structures; (ii) detect the relations...

show abstract

Section: Stand Structurementioning

confidence: 81%

Dead wood and stand structure - relationships for forest plots across Europe

Seidling¹,

Travaglini²,

Meyer³

et al. 2014

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The measurement of species diversity and other parameters of community structure has been a central subject in ecology for the last five decades (see, for example, Margalef 1957;MacArthur 1965;Pielou 1969Pielou , 1975Whittaker 1972;Peet 1974;May 1975;Kempton and Wedderburn 1978;Kempton 1979;Good 1982;Patil and Taillie 1982;Washington 1984;Magurran 1988Magurran , 2004Camargo 1992bCamargo , 1993aCamargo , 1995Smith and Wilson 1996;Krebs 1999;Ricotta 2005Ricotta , 2007Jost 2006Jost , 2007.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Relation Between Species Diversity and Information Theory

Camargo

2008

Acta Biotheor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Shannon information function (H) has been extensively used in ecology as a statistic of species diversity. Yet, the use of Shannon diversity index has also been criticized, mainly because of its ambiguous ecological interpretation and because of its relatively great sensitivity to the relative abundances of species in the community. In my opinion, the major shortcoming of the traditional perspective (on the possible relation of species diversity with information theory) is that species need for an external receiver (the scientist or ecologist) to exist and transmit information. Because organisms are self-catalized replicating structures that can transmit genotypic information to offspring, it should be evident that any single species has two possible states or alternatives: to be or not to be. In other words, species have no need for an external receiver since they are their own receivers. Therefore, the amount of biological information (at the species scale) in a community with one only species would be log2(2)1 = 1 species, and not log2(1) = 0 bits as in the traditional perspective. Moreover, species diversity appears to be a monotonic increasing function of log2(2)S (or S) when all species are equally probable (S being species richness), and not a function of log2 S as in the traditional perspective. To avoid the noted shortcoming, we could use 2(H) (instead of H) for calculating species diversity and species evenness (= 2(H)/S). However, owing to the relatively great sensitivity of H to the relative abundances of species in the community, the value of species dominance (= 1 - 2(H)/S) is unreasonably high when differences between dominant and subordinate species are considerable, thereby lowering the value of species evenness and diversity. This unsatisfactory behaviour is even more evident for Simpson index and related algorithms. I propose the use of other statistics for a better analysis of community structure, their relationship being: species evenness + species dominance = 1; species diversity x species uniformity = 1; and species diversity = species richness x species evenness.

show abstract

“…Species number and evenness can be confessed as two extremes on a spectrum of diversity measures from mere species richness to evenness as a pure expression of the dominance structure, with Shannon-Wiener and Simpson indices in between. Scale dependence of diversity measures was discussed by To´thme´re´sz (1998); diversity indices were discussed in general by Peet (1974) or Patil and Taillie (1982). Table 6 displays the results of multiple regression models with stepwise forward selection with diversity measures as response variables.…”

Section: Diversity Of the Ground Floor Vegetationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground floor vegetation assessment within the intensive (Level II) monitoring of forest ecosystems in Germany: chances and challenges

Seidling¹

2005

Eur J Forest Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a part of the 'Intensive Forest Monitoring Programme' of ICP Forests, ground floor vegetation has been surveyed along with parameters of other relevant components of the forest ecosystems and their environment at 80 permanent plots all over Germany. Its floristic composition and their changes can therefore be linked to a wide variety of potentially influencing factors, scrutinising recent hypotheses on floristic changes, mainly soil eutrophication and acidification due to air pollutants. Results of a broad-scaled feasibility study are presented and critically discussed with regard to future in-depth evaluations. After an overview on the most abundant species, the syntaxonomic allocation of the plots is given. An ordination reveals a gradient from nutrient and base rich soils to poor acidic soils. Floristic dynamics are mainly aligned with the main axis, but conclusions about the medium-term development cannot be stated yet. Ordination and subsequent statistics are recommended to open up a wide field for explorative investigations. Indicator values for soil acidity and nutrient supply corroborate the main floristic gradient. Based on an empirical species-area relationship (SAR), species numbers for a common plot size of 400 m 2 were calculated. Basic relationships among different diversity measures and between diversity measures and basic stand and site-related parameters were elaborated. Recommendations focus on enhancements of the assessment of ground floor vegetation within the context of the Level II monitoring like annual sampling or harmonisation of the plot sizes.

show abstract

Diversity as a Concept and its Measurement

Cited by 529 publications

References 37 publications

Dead wood and stand structure - relationships for forest plots across Europe

Dead wood and stand structure - relationships for forest plots across Europe

Revisiting the Relation Between Species Diversity and Information Theory

Ground floor vegetation assessment within the intensive (Level II) monitoring of forest ecosystems in Germany: chances and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About