Ecologists often face the task of studying the association between single species and one or several groups of sites representing habitat types, community types, or other categories. Besides characterizing the ecological preference of the species, the strength of the association usually presents a lot of interest for conservation biology, landscape mapping and management, and natural reserve design, among other applications. The indices most frequently employed to assess these relationships are the phi coefficient of association and the indicator value index (IndVal). We compare these two approaches by putting them into a broader framework of related measures, which includes several new indices. We present permutation tests to assess the statistical significance of species-site group associations and bootstrap methods for obtaining confidence intervals. Correlation measures, such as the phi coefficient, are more context-dependent than indicator values but allow focusing on the preference of the species. In contrast, the two components of an indicator value index directly assess the value of the species as a bioindicator because they can be interpreted as its positive predictive value and sensitivity. Ecologists should select the most appropriate index of association strength according to their objective and then compute confidence intervals to determine the precision of the estimate.

Beta diversity can be measured in different ways. Among these, the total variance of the community data table Y can be used as an estimate of beta diversity. We show how the total variance of Y can be calculated either directly or through a dissimilarity matrix obtained using any dissimilarity index deemed appropriate for pairwise comparisons of community composition data. We addressed the question of which index to use by coding 16 indices using 14 properties that are necessary for beta assessment, comparability among data sets, sampling issues and ordination. Our comparison analysis classified the coefficients under study into five types, three of which are appropriate for beta diversity assessment. Our approach links the concept of beta diversity with the analysis of community data by commonly used methods like ordination and anova. Total beta can be partitioned into Species Contributions (SCBD: degree of variation of individual species across the study area) and Local Contributions (LCBD: comparative indicators of the ecological uniqueness of the sites) to Beta Diversity. Moreover, total beta can be broken up into within- and among-group components by manova, into orthogonal axes by ordination, into spatial scales by eigenfunction analysis or among explanatory data sets by variation partitioning.

Indicator species are species that are used as ecological indicators of community or habitat types, environmental conditions, or environmental changes. In order to determine indicator species, the characteristic to be predicted is represented in the form of a classification of the sites, which is compared to the patterns of distribution of the species found at the sites. Indicator species analysis should take into account the fact that species have different niche breadths: if a species is related to the conditions prevailing in two or more groups of sites, an indicator species analysis undertaken on individual groups of sites may fail to reveal this association. In this paper, we suggest improving indicator species analysis by considering all possible combinations of groups of sites and selecting the combination for which the species can be best used as indicator. When using a correlation index, such as the point‐biserial correlation, the method yields the combination where the difference between the observed and expected abundance/frequency of the species is the largest. When an indicator value index (IndVal) is used, the method provides the set of site‐groups that best matches the observed distribution pattern of the species. We illustrate the advantages of the method in three different examples. Consideration of combinations of groups of sites provides an extra flexibility to qualitatively model the habitat preferences of the species of interest. The method also allows users to cross multiple classifications of the same sites, increasing the amount of information resulting from the analysis. When applied to community types, it allows one to distinguish those species that characterize individual types from those that characterize the relationships between them. This distinction is useful to determine the number of types that maximizes the number of indicator species.

HOW TO CITE TSPACE ITEMSAlways cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the TSpace version (original manuscript or accepted manuscript) because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page. Abstract. Species spatial distributions are the result of population demography, behavioral traits, and species interactions in spatially heterogeneous environmental conditions. Hence the composition of species assemblages is an integrative response variable, and its variability can be explained by the complex interplay among several structuring factors. The thorough analysis of spatial variation in species assemblages may help infer processes shaping ecological communities. We suggest that ecological studies would benefit from the combined use of the classical statistical models of community composition data, such as constrained or unconstrained multivariate analyses of site-by-species abundance tables, with rapidly emerging and diversifying methods of spatial pattern analysis. Doing so allows one to deal with spatially explicit ecological models of beta diversity in a biogeographic context through the multiscale analysis of spatial patterns in original species data tables, including spatial characterization of fitted or residual variation from environmental models. We summarize here the recent progress for specifying spatial features through spatial weighting matrices and spatial eigenfunctions in order to define spatially constrained or scale-explicit multivariate analyses. Through a worked example on tropical tree communities, we also show the potential of the overall approach to identify significant residual spatial patterns that could arise from the omission of important unmeasured explanatory variables or processes. REVIEWS