Combining taxon-by-trait and taxon-by-site matrices for analysing trait patterns of macroinvertebrate communities: a rejoinder to Monaghan & Soares (2014)

Schmera, Dénes and Podani, János and Erős, Tibor and Heino, J. (2014) Combining taxon-by-trait and taxon-by-site matrices for analysing trait patterns of macroinvertebrate communities: a rejoinder to Monaghan & Soares (2014). FRESHWATER BIOLOGY, 59. pp. 1551-1557. ISSN 0046-5070

Preview	Text SchmeraD_ErosT_etal_FB_kezirat.pdf Download (518kB) | Preview
	Text SchmeraD_ErosT_etal_FB_vegl.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (219kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

In a recent paper, Heino, Schmera & Erős (2013) provided an overview of trait 58 patterns of stream communities from a macroecological perspective. In this paper , 59 reference was made to Gayraud et al . (2003) , who showed that abundance - weighted 60 traits were less powe rful than presence - absence weighted traits in discriminating 61 communities under different degrees of human impacts , and to Statzner & Beche 62 (2010) , who therefore advocated the use of the second type of weighting for practical 63 biomonitoring due to logis tic constrains ( e.g. sorting of qualitative samples makes 64 3 assessment program me s more cost effective) . H eino et al . (2013) pointed out that 65 t hese findings contradict the results of taxon - based analyses which suggest that , if 66 taxa are weighted by their abund ance , then communities are better separated in 67 relation to environmental variation than when taxa are weighted only by their 68 presence . Based on an overview of the literature, Heino et al . (2013) concluded that 69 results of presence - and abundance - based analy ses should be evaluated carefully 70 when examining traits of organisms, because differences among studies can reflect 71 both methodological (i.e. handling of data) and real ecological differences (see p. 72 1549 in H eino et al ., 2013 ) . More recently, Monaghan & S oares (2014 ) stated that (1) 73 H eino et al . (2013) identified the weak explanatory power of abundance data as a 74 major limitation of macroinvertebrat e trait analysis and that (2) the log - transformation 75 of abundance data may cause anomalies in trait - based anal yses. W e disagree with 76 both conclusions , because (1) H eino et al . (2013) did not actually state this (see 77 above) and because (2), in our view, log - transformation of abundance data in trait - 78 based analyses can also be meaningful . To reveal the causes of thes e differ ing views , 79 we go through the examples provided by M onaghan & Soares (2014) and examine 80 how traits can be weighted by the presence, abundance and log - transformed 81 abundance of the taxa . To do this, firs t we define the terminology used here , comment 82 o n the approach of M onaghan & Soares (2014) and show how this procedure should 83 be performed.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item