Skip to main content
Log in

Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The search for species associations is one of the classical problems of community ecology. This article proposes to use Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) to identify groups of significantly associated species in field survey data. An overall test of independence of all species is first carried out. If the null hypothesis is rejected, one looks for groups of correlated species and, within each group, tests the contribution of each species to the overall statistic, using a permutation test. A field survey of oribatid mites in the peat blanket surrounding a bog lake is presented as an example. In the permutation framework, an a posteriori test of the contribution of each “judge” (species) to the overall W concordance statistic is possible; this is not the case in the classical testing framework. A simulation study showed that when the number of judges is small, which is the case in most real-life applications of Kendall’s test of concordance, the classical χ2 test is overly conservative, whereas the permutation test has correct Type 1 error; power of the permutation test is thus also higher. The interpretation and usefulness of the a posteriori tests are discussed in the framework of environmental studies. They can help identify groups of concordant species that can be used as indices of the quality of the environment, in particular in cases of pollution or contamination of the environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baird, D. (1988), “Significance Tests, History and Logic,” in Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (vol. 8), eds. S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson, New York: Wiley, pp. 466–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borcard, D., and Legendre, P. (1994), “Environmental Control and Spatial Structure in Ecological Communities: An Example Using Oribatid Mites (Acari, Oribatei),” Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 1, 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcard, D., Legendre, P., and Drapeau, P. (1992), “Partialling Out the Spatial Component of Ecological Variation,” Ecology, 73, 1045–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcard, D., Legendre, P., Avois-Jacquet, C., and Tuomisto, H. (2004), “Dissecting the Spatial Structure of Ecological Data at Multiple Scales,” Ecology, 85, 1826–1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calinski, T., and Harabasz, J. (1974), “A Dendrite Method for Cluster Analysis,” Communications in Statistics, 3, 1–27.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Edgington, E. S. (1995), Randomization Tests (3rd ed.), New York: Marcel Dekker.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fager, E. W., and McGowan, J. A. (1963), “Zooplankton Species Groups in the North Pacific,” Science (Washington DC), 140, 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, H. A. (1926), “The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association,” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 53, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (1979), “A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure,” Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, A. C. A. (1968), “A Simplified Monte Carlo Test Procedure,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 50, 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. A., Somers, K. M., and Harvey, H. A. (1992), “Null Models and Fish Communities: Evidence of Nonrandom Patterns,” The American Naturalist, 139, 930–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P. (2000), “Comparison of Permutation Methods for the Partial Correlation and Partial Mantel Tests,” Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 67, 37–73.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P., and Gallagher, E. D. (2001), “Ecologically Meaningful Transformations for Ordination of Species Data,” Oecologia, 129, 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P., and Legendre, L. (1998), Numerical Ecology (2nd English ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, G. W., and Cooper, M. C. (1985), “An Examination of Procedures for Determining the Number of Clusters in a Dataset,” Psychometrika, 50, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavillard, J. (1912), “Essai sur la Nomenclature Phytogéographique,” Bulletin de la Société Languedocienne de Géographie, 35, 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. R. (1995), “A Review of Canonical Coordinates and an Alternative to Correspondence Analysis Using Hellinger Distance,” Qüestiió (Quaderns d’Estadística i Investigació Operativa), 19, 23–63.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. (1956), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S., and Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. (1956), “Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains,“ Ecological Monographs, 26, 1–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — (1962), “Classification of Natural Communities,” The Botanical Review, 28, 1–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. P. (1992), “Adjusted P Values for Simultaneous Inference,” Biometrics, 48, 1005–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zar, J. H. (1999), Biostatistical Analysis (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Legendre.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Legendre, P. Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited. JABES 10, 226–245 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1198/108571105X46642

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1198/108571105X46642

Key Words

Navigation