Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T09:36:57.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interpretation of paleoecological similarity matrices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

E. C. Pielou*
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1

Abstract

Consider a one-dimensional sequence (temporal or spatial) of samples from a many-species community. The sequence may exhibit no steady change, or gradual, steady change, or one or more abrupt, stepwise changes. The pattern is graphically displayed in a similarity matrix, whose elements are the pairwise similarities between every possible pair of samples.

Statistical study of the patterns of similarity matrices will be shown to be informative. A criterion, Q, is proposed for measuring the “disarray” of a similarity matrix; matrices constructed from “perfect” sequences, exhibiting uninterrupted steady change, have Q = 0. The probability distribution of Q in “random” similarity matrices (constructed from sequences in which the ordering is wholly haphazard) is examined.

Several applications are illustrated, using data on foraminiferal assemblages in marine sediment cores as examples. Use of the criterion permits the following: (1) Objective recognition of regions in which stratigraphy is especially well preserved. (2) Selection for study of cores in which the sequence of change is especially clear, and rejection of cores in which the natural sequence has been obscured by reworking. (3) Judgment as to whether, in sequences exhibiting stepwise changes, gradual change between the steps occurs as well. (4) Discrimination between species-sets that track gradual environmental change and sets that switch abruptly. (5) Objective choice of the best similarity index for measuring pairwise similarities in a given body of data.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Cottam, G., Goff, F. G., and Whittaker, R. H. 1978. Wisconsin comparative ordination. Pp. 185213. In: Whittaker, R. H., ed. Ordination of Plant Communities. Junk; The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, D. W. 1978. Sample similarity and species correlation. Pp. 99149. In: Whittaker, R. H., ed. Ordination of Plant Communities. Junk; The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, A. D. 1973. A sequence-comparison statistic and algorithm. Biometrika. 60:197200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. G. 1962. Rank Correlation Methods. 3rd ed.199 pp. Hafner; New York.Google Scholar
Klovan, J. E. 1975. R- and Q-mode factor analysis. Pp. 2169. In: McCammon, R. B., ed. Concepts in Geostatistics. Springer-Verlag; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, R. P. 1978. Matrix and plexus techniques. Pp. 151184. In: Whittaker, R. H., ed. Ordination of Plant Communities. Junk; The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orloci, L. 1978. Multivariate Analysis in Vegetation Research. 2nd ed.451 pp. Junk; The Hague.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1977. Mathematical Ecology. 385 pp. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Ruddiman, W. F., Tolderlund, D. S. and , A. W. H. 1970. Foraminiferal evidence of a modern warming of the North Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. 17:141155.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. L. and Hessler, R. R. 1969. Ecology of the deep-sea benthos. Science. 163:14191424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, R. R. and Sneath, P. H. A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. 359 pp. Freeman; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1966. Numerical analysis of marine molluscan ranges on the extratropical northeastern Pacific shelf. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11:198211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilks, G. 1979. Postglacial basin sedimentation on Labrador Shelf. Geol. Surv. Can. Pap. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1952. A study of summer foliage insect communities in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 22:144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar