Synthesis The identification of distinctive patterns in species x site presence-absence matrices is important for understanding meta-community organisation. We compared the performance of a suite of null models and metrics that have been proposed to measure patterns of segregation, aggregation, nestedness, coherence, and species turnover. We found that any matrix with segregated species pairs can be re-ordered to highlight aggregated pairs, indicating that these seemingly opposite patterns are closely related. Recently proposed classification schemes failed to correctly classify realistic matrices that included multiple co-occurrence structures. We propose using a combination of metrics and decomposing matrix-wide patterns into those of individual pairs of species and sites to pinpoint sources of non-randomness. Null model analysis has been a popular tool for detecting pattern in binary presence-absence matrices, and previous tests have identified algorithms and metrics that have good statistical properties. However, the behavior of different metrics is often correlated, making it difficult to distinguish different patterns. We compared the performance of a suite of null models and metrics that have been proposed to measure patterns of segregation, aggregation, nestedness, coherence, and species turnover. We found that any matrix with segregated species pairs can be re-ordered to highlight aggregated pairs. As a consequence, the same null model can identify a single matrix as being simultaneously aggregated, segregated or nested. These results cast doubt on previous conclusions of matrix-wide species segregation based on the C-score and into those of individual pairs of species or pairs of sites to pinpoint the sources of non-randomness. © 2012 The Authors. Oikos © 2012 Nordic Society Oikos.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
© 2012 The Authors.
Ulrich W, Gotelli NJ. Pattern detection in null model analysis. Oikos. 2013 Jan;122(1):2-18.