Strictly speaking, species
diversity is the number of different species in a
particular area (species
richness) weighted by some measure of abundance such as
number of individuals or biomass. However, it is common for
conservation biologists to speak of species diversity even when
they are actually referring to species richness.
Another measure of species diversity is the species evenness, which is the
relative abundance with which each species is represented in an
area. An ecosystem where all the
species are represented by the same number of individuals has high
species evenness. An ecosystem where some species are
represented by many individuals, and other species are
represented by very few individuals has a low species
evenness. Table 1 shows the abundance of species
(number of individuals per hectare) in three ecosystems and
gives the measures of species richness (S), evenness (E), and
the Shannon diversity index (H).
Shannon's diversity index
H=−∑
ρ
i
ln
ρ
i
H
ρ
i
ρ
i
-
ρ
i
ρ
i
is the proportion of the total number of specimens
ii expressed as a proportion of
the total number of species for all species in the
ecosystem. The product of
ρ
i
ln
ρ
i
ρ
i
ρ
i
for each species in the ecosystem is summed, and multiplied
by
−11
to give HH. The species
evenness index
(EE)
is calculated as
E=H
H
max
E
H
H
max
.
-
HmaxHmax
is the maximum possible value of
HH, and is
equivalent to
lnSS.
Thus
E=HlnS
E
H
S
See
Gibbs et al., 1998:
p157 and
Beals et
al. (2000) for discussion and examples.
Magurran (1988) also gives discussion of
the methods of quantifying diversity.
In Table 1, ecosystem A shows the greatest
diversity in terms of species richness. However, ecosystem B
could be described as being richer insofar
as most species present are more evenly represented by numbers
of individuals; thus the species evenness (E) value is
larger. This example also illustrates a condition that is often
seen in tropical ecosystems, where disturbance of the ecosystem
causes uncommon species to become even less common, and common
species to become even more common. Disturbance of ecosystem B
may produce ecosystem C, where the uncommon species 3 has become
less common, and the relatively common species 1 has become more
common. There may even be an increase in the number of species
in some disturbed ecosystems but, as noted above, this may occur
with a concomitant reduction in the abundance of individuals or
local extinction of the rarer species.
Species richness and species evenness are probably the most
frequently used measures of the total biodiversity of a region.
Species diversity is also described in terms of the phylogenetic diversity, or
evolutionary relatedness, of the species present in an area. For
example, some areas may be rich in closely related taxa, having
evolved from a common ancestor that was also found in that same
area, whereas other areas may have an array of less closely
related species descended from different ancestors (see further
comments in the section on Species
diversity as a surrogate for global biodiversity).
To count the number of species, we must define what constitutes
a species. There are several competing theories, or
"species concepts" (Mayden, 1997). The
most widely accepted are the morphological species concept, the
biological species concept, and the phylogenetic species
concept.
Although the morphological species
concept (MSC) is largely outdated as a theoretical
definition, it is still widely used. According to this concept:
species are the smallest groups that are
consistently and persistently distinct, and distinguishable by
ordinary means. (Cronquist,
1978).
In other words,
morphological species concept states that "a
species is a community, or a number of related communities,
whose distinctive morphological characters are, in the opinion
of a competent systematist, sufficiently definite to entitle it,
or them, to a specific name" (
Regan, 1926:
75).
The biological species concept (BSC), as
described by Mayr and Ashlock (1991),
states that
"a species is a group of interbreeding natural populations
that is reproductively isolated from other such groups".
According to the phylogenetic species
concept (PSC), as defined by Cracraft (1983), a species :
"is the smallest diagnosable cluster of individual organism
[that is, the cluster of organisms are identifiably distinct
from other clusters] within which there is a parental pattern
of ancestry and descent".
These concepts are not congruent, and considerable debate exists
about the advantages and disadvantages of all existing species
concepts (for further discussion, see the module on
Macroevolution: essentials of systematics and
taxonomy).
In practice, systematists usually group specimens together
according to shared features (genetic, morphological,
physiological). When two or more groups show different sets of
shared characters, and the shared characters for each group
allow all the members of that group to be distinguished
relatively easily and consistently from the members of another
group, then the groups are considered different species. This
approach relies on the objectivity of the phylogenetic species
concept (i.e., the use of intrinsic, shared,
characters to define or diagnose a species) and applies it to
the practicality of the morphological species concept, in terms
of sorting specimens into groups (Kottelat, 1995, 1997).
Despite their differences, all species concepts are based on the
understanding that there are parameters that make a species a
discrete and identifiable evolutionary entity. If populations of
a species become isolated, either through differences in their
distribution (i.e., geographic isolation) or
through differences in their reproductive biology
(i.e., reproductive isolation), they can
diverge, ultimately resulting in speciation. During this
process, we expect to see distinct populations representing
incipient species - species in the process of
formation. Some researchers may describe these as subspecies or
some other sub-category, according to the species concept used
by these researchers. However, it is very difficult to decide
when a population is sufficiently different from other
populations to merit its ranking as a subspecies. For these
reasons, subspecific and infrasubspecific ranks may become
extremely subjective decisions of the degree of distinctiveness
between groups of organisms (Kottelat,
1997).
An evolutionary significant unit (ESU)
is defined, in conservation biology, as a group of organisms
that has undergone significant genetic divergence from other
groups of the same species. According to Ryder, 1986 identification of ESUs requires
the use of natural history information, range and distribution
data, and results from analyses of morphometrics, cytogenetics,
allozymes and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. In practice, many
ESUs are based on only a subset of these data sources.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to compare data from different
sources (e.g., analyses of distribution,
morphometrics, and DNA) when establishing the status of ESUs. If
the ESUs are based on populations that are sympatric or parapatric then it is particularly
important to give evidence of significant genetic distance
between those populations.
ESUs are important for conservation management because they can
be used to identify discrete components of the evolutionary
legacy of a species that warrant conservation
action. Nevertheless, in evolutionary terms and hence in many
systematic studies, species are recognized as the minimum
identifiable unit of biodiversity above the level of a single
organism (Kottelat, 1997). Thus
there is generally more systematic information available for
species diversity than for subspecific categories and for ESUs.
Consequently, estimates of species diversity are used more
frequently as the standard measure of overall biodiversity of
a region.
Global biodiversity is frequently expressed as the total
number of species currently living on Earth,
i.e., its species richness. Between about
1.5 and 1.75 million species have been discovered and
scientifically described thus far (LeCointre and Guyader, 2001; Cracraft, 2002). Estimates for the
number of scientifically valid species vary partly because of
differing opinions on the definition of a species.For example,
the phylogenetic species concept recognizes more species than
the biological species concept. Also, some scientific
descriptions of species appear in old, obscure, or poorly
circulated publications. In these cases, scientists may
accidentally overlook certain species when preparing
inventories of biota, causing them to describe and name an
already known species.
More significantly, some species are very difficult to
identify. For example, taxonomically "cryptic species" look
very similar to other species and may be misidentified (and
hence overlooked as being a different species). Thus, several
different, but similar-looking species, identified as a single
species by one scientist, are identified as completely
different species by another scientist. For further discussion
of cryptic species, with specific examples of cryptic frogs
from Vietnam, see Inger (1999) and
Bain et al., (in
press).
Scientists expect that the scientifically described species
represent only a small fraction of the total number of species
on Earth today. Many additional species have yet to be
discovered, or are known to scientists but have not been
formally described. Scientists estimate that the total number of
species on Earth could range from about 3.6 million up to 117.7
million, with 13 to 20 million being the most frequently cited
range (Hammond, 1995; Cracraft, 2002).
The estimation of total number of species is based on
extrapolations from what we already know about
certain groups of species. For example, we can extrapolate using
the ratio of scientifically described species to undescribed
species of a particular group of organisms collected from a
prescribed area. However, we know so little about some groups of
organisms, such as bacteria and some types of fungi, that we do
not have suitable baseline data from which we can extrapolate
our estimated total number of species on Earth. Additionally,
some groups of organisms have not been comprehensively collected
from areas where their species richness is likely to be richest
(for example, insects in tropical rainforests). These factors,
and the fact that different people have used different
techniques and data sets to extrapolate the total number of
species, explain the large range between the lower and upper
figures of 3.6 million and 117.7 million, respectively.
While it is important to know the total number of species of
Earth, it is also informative to have some measure of the
proportional representation of different groups of related
species (e.g. bacteria, flowering plants,
insects, birds, mammals). This is usually referred to as the
taxonomic or phylogenetic diversity. Species are grouped
together according to shared characteristics (genetic,
anatomical, biochemical, physiological, or behavioral) and this
gives us a classification of the species based on their
phylogenetic, or apparent evolutionary relationships. We can
then use this information to assess the proportion of related
species among the total number of species on Earth. Table 1 contains a selection of well-known taxa.
Table 1: Estimated Numbers of Described Species, Based on
Lecointre and Guyader (2001)
* The total number of described species is assumed to be
1,747,851. This figure, and the numbers of species for
taxa are taken from
LeCointre and
Guyader (2001).
| Taxon |
Taxon Common Name |
Number of species described* |
N as percentage of total number of described species* |
| Bacteria |
true bacteria |
9021 |
0.5 |
| Archaea |
archaebacteria |
259 |
0.01 |
| Bryophyta |
mosses |
15000 |
0.9 |
| Lycopodiophyta |
clubmosses |
1275 |
0.07 |
| Filicophyta |
ferns |
9500 |
0.5 |
| Coniferophyta |
conifers |
601 |
0.03 |
| Magnoliophyta |
flowering plants |
233885 |
13.4 |
| Fungi |
fungi |
100800 |
5.8 |
| "Porifera" |
sponges |
10000 |
0.6 |
| Cnidaria |
cnidarians |
9000 |
0.5 |
| Rotifera |
rotifers |
1800 |
0.1 |
| Platyhelminthes |
flatworms |
13780 |
0.8 |
| Mollusca |
mollusks |
117495 |
6.7 |
| Annelida |
annelid worms |
14360 |
0.8 |
| Nematoda |
nematode worms |
20000 |
1.1 |
| Arachnida |
arachnids |
74445 |
4.3 |
| Crustacea |
crustaceans |
38839 |
2.2 |
| Insecta |
insects |
827875 |
47.4 |
| Echinodermata |
echinoderms |
6000 |
0.3 |
| Chondrichthyes |
cartilaginous fishes |
846 |
0.05 |
| Actinopterygii |
ray-finned bony fishes |
23712 |
1.4 |
| Lissamphibia |
living amphibians |
4975 |
0.3 |
| Mammalia |
mammals |
4496 |
0.3 |
| Chelonia |
living turtles |
290 |
0.02 |
| Squamata |
lizards and snakes |
6850 |
0.4 |
| Aves |
birds |
9672 |
0.6 |
| Other |
|
193075 |
11.0 |
Most public attention is focused on the biology and ecology of
large, charismatic species such as mammals, birds, and certain
species of trees (e.g., mahogany, sequoia).
However, the greater part of Earth's species diversity is found
in other, generally overlooked groups, such as mollusks,
insects, and groups of flowering plants.
- Species diversity:
the number of different species in a particular area
(i.e., species richness) weighted by some
measure of abundance such as number of individuals or biomass.
- Species richness:
the number of different species in a particular area
- Species evenness:
the relative abundance with which each species are represented
in an area.
- Phylogenetic diversity:
the evolutionary relatedness of the species present in an area.
- Morphological species concept:
species are the smallest natural populations permanently
separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the
series of biotype (Du Rietz, 1930; Bisby and Coddington,
1995).
- Biological species concept:
a species is a group of interbreeding natural populations
unable to successfully mate or reproduce with other such
groups, and which occupies a specific niche in nature (Mayr,
1982; Bisby and Coddington, 1995).
- Phylogenetic species concept:
a species is the smallest group of organisms that is
diagnosably [that is, identifiably] distinct from other such
clusters and within which there is a parental pattern of
ancestry and descent (Cracraft, 1983; Bisby and Coddington,
1995).
- Evolutionary significant unit:
a group of organisms that has undergone significant genetic
divergence from other groups of the same
species. Identification of ESUs is based on natural history
information, range and distribution data, and results from
analyses of morphometrics, cytogenetics, allozymes and nuclear
and mitochondrial DNA. Concordance of those data, and the
indication of significant genetic distance between sympatric
groups of organisms, are critical for establishing an ESU.
- Ecosystem:
a community plus the physical environment that it occupies at
a given time.
- Sympatric:
occupying the same geographic area.
- Parapatric:
occupying contiguous but not overlapping ranges.
-
Mayden, R.L. (1997). A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In M.F. Claridge, H.A. Dawah, and M.R. Wilson (Eds.), Species: the units of biodiversity. (pp. 381-424). London, U.K.: Chapman and Hall.
-
Du Rietz, G.E. (1930). The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, 24, 333-428.
-
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Harvard University Press.
-
Bisby, F.A. and J. Coddington. (1995). Biodiversity from a taxonomic and evolutionary perspective. In V.H. Heywood and R.T. Watson (Eds.), Global Biodiversity Assessment. (pp. 27-56). Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
-
Cracraft, C. (1983). Species concepts and speciation analysis. Ornithology, 1, 159-187.
-
Kottelat, M. (1995). Systematic studies and biodiversity: the need for a pragmatic approach. Journal of Natural History, 29, 565-569.
-
Kottelat, M. (1997). European freshwater fishes: an heuristic checklist of the freshwater fishes of Europe (exclusive of former USSR), with an introduction for non-systematists and comments on nomenclature and conservation. Biologia (Bratislava), 52 (Supplement 5), 1-271.
-
Ryder, O.A. (1986). Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1(1), 9-10.
-
Cracraft, C. (2002). The seven great questions of systematic biology: an essential foundation for conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 89, 127-144.
-
Lecointre, G. and H. Le Guyader. (2001). Classification phylogenetique du vivant. Paris, France: Belin.
-
Inger, R.F. (1999). Distribution of amphibians of southern Asia and adjacent islands. (pp. 445-482). Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
-
Bain, R.H., A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, N.L. Orlov, and Ho Thu Cuc. (in press). Cryptic species of a cascade frog from Southeast Asia: taxonomic revisions and descriptions of six new species. American Museum Novitates.
-
Hammond, P. (1995). The current magnitude of biodiversity. In V.H. Heywood and R.T. Watson (Eds.), Global Biodiversity Assessment. (pp. 113-138). Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
-
Beals, M., L. Gross, S. Harrell. (1998). Diversity indices: Shannon's H and E. In L.J. Gross, B.C. Mullin, S.E. Riechert, O.J. Schwarz, M. Beals, S. Harrell (Ed.), Alternative routes to quantitative literacy for the life sciences - A project supported by the National Science Foundation. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
-
Gibbs, J.P., M.L. Hunter, Jr. and E.J. Sterling. (1998). Problem-Solving in conservation biology and wildlife management. In Exercises for class, field and laboratory. Blackwell Science, Massachusetts, U.S.A
-
Magurran, A.E. (1998). Ecological diversity and its measurement. In Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A: Princeton University Press.
-
Cronquist, A. (1978). Once again, what is a species? In L.V. Knutson (Ed.), Biosystematics in Agriculture. (pp. 3-20). Montclair, New Jersey, U.S.A: Allenheld Osmin.
-
Regan, C.T. (1926). Organic Evolution. In Report British Association for Advancement of Science, 1925. (pp. 75-86).
-
Mayr, E. and P.D. Ashlock. (1991). Principles of systematic zoology. New York, New York, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill.
"Accessible versions of this collection are available at Bookshare. DAISY and BRF provided."