Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 182 references

Diversity in Biology: definitions, quantification, and models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review shows that most diversity metrics are special cases of the Hill-number family and that sampling bias, not the choice of index, carries most of the practical error.

desk verdict Useful cross-disciplinary diversity review with one real sampling error in Eq. (37) that needs fixing before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08190 v2 pith:3HGBOUDY submitted 2019-08-22 q-bio.PE q-bio.QM

Song Xu , Lucas Böttcher , Tom Chou This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEq-bio.QM MSC 92D4094A1762D0562P10
keywords diversityindicesHillnumbersShannonentropyclonecountsspeciesabundancedistributionrarefactionsamplingbiasTcellreceptor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Diversity looks intuitive but is hard to pin down: a population's spread over types needs a whole distribution, not one number. This review's organizing claim is that most common diversity indices are special cases of the Hill-number family $qD=(\sum_i f_i^q)^{1/(1-q)}$, with the order $q$ controlling how much weight rare versus abundant types receive. From that starting point, the paper shows that sampling affects each Hill order differently—richness is the most biased, Simpson-type indices the least—and that different indices can even rank two populations in opposite directions. The practical conclusion for a biologist, immunologist, or economist is that there is no universal best metric; the right index depends on the question, and any single-index conclusion should be cross-checked against sampling corrections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hill number $qD=(\sum_i f_i^q)^{1/(1-q)}$, a one-parameter family indexed by the order $q$: $q\to0^+$ gives richness, $q\to1$ gives the exponential of Shannon entropy, $q=2$ gives Simpson's diversity, and $q\to\infty$ gives the reciprocal of the Berger-Parker index. The paper pairs this with the clone-count representation $c_k=\sum_i \mathbf{1}(n_i,k)$, which counts how many types appear in exactly $k$ copies and lets diversity be computed without species identities. The sampling machinery consists of the two probability distributions $P_{1\times M}$ and $P_{M\times1}$ for drawing a sample, whose expectation values show which diversity indices are biased, plus Chao-type estimators that invert the sampling map and recover population diversity from a sample.

What would settle it

Take a community with known species abundances and clone counts (for example, a fully sequenced synthetic microbial community), sample it under a deliberately clustered protocol, and compare the observed average Simpson's index without replacement with the paper's prediction that the sample expectation equals the population value; a systematic deviation would show exactly where the perfectly random sampling assumption, rather than the diversity framework itself, has broken down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a unification and a warning. Nearly every widely used diversity measure—species richness, the Shannon index, evenness, Simpson's index, the Berger-Parker dominance measure—is a special case of the Hill numbers $qD=(\sum_i f_i^q)^{1/(1-q)}$, where $f_i$ is the relative abundance of type $i$ and $q$ tunes the sensitivity to rare versus common types. Under two standard random-sampling protocols (repeated draws with replacement, and one draw of a fraction of the population), the expected value of Simpson's diversity without replacement in the sample equals the population value, whereas richness and Shannon-based measures are systematically underestimated. The paper therefore warns that no single metric is universally appropriate: at different $q$, different aspects of the distribution are being measured, and the same data can support opposing conclusions. Its recommended practice is to match the index to the scientific question, correct for sampling with estimators such as Chao1 where the sampling model applies, and cross-check several indices.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that sampling is perfectly random and well-mixed, with every species or clone equally likely to be captured; under spatial clustering, PCR amplification bias, or non-uniform capture, the quantitative sample-to-population relations in Section 5 do not hold, and the paper acknowledges these limitations only qualitatively.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The order $q$ is a question-selection dial: $q=0$ counts types, $q=1$ weights by frequency, $q=2$ emphasizes dominant types, and two communities can be ranked oppositely at different $q$.
  • Sample-based richness is always a lower bound and is the most sampling-sensitive common measure; Simpson's diversity at $q=2$ is far more stable, and its without-replacement form is unbiased under both sampling protocols the paper analyzes.
  • Chao1/Chao2 and related estimators can correct sample-to-population diversity when sampling is perfectly random, but Chao1 is only a lower bound and is reliable only when the population is not much larger than the sample.
  • Diversity values are resolution-dependent: changing how a continuous trait is binned changes both number counts and clone counts, so a reported diversity index is only meaningful together with the species or trait definition that produced it.
  • Because different diversity indices can move in opposite directions in the same dataset, a single-index conclusion is fragile; the paper recommends cross-checking metrics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not push this, but its own ordering structure implies that reporting the whole profile $qD(q)$ over a range of $q$ is more informative than any single Hill number, and it would make index-choice debates less necessary.
  • The same sampling-bias logic should apply to socioeconomic inequality measures such as the Gini or Theil index: any subsampling of income data will bias them in an order-dependent way, and Chao-style corrections could in principle be adapted there.
  • The polarization index $P[f]\propto\iint f^{1+\alpha}(x)f(y)|x-y|\,dx\,dy$ looks like a two-parameter generalization of Hill numbers with a distance kernel; testing that connection could unify inequality and diversity measurement, but the paper does not make this claim.
  • Resolution dependence suggests a practical convention: report diversity at multiple trait-bin widths, since any single bin width is arbitrary and the paper shows the numbers shift with resolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This topical review surveys quantitative measures of diversity for biological and sociological applications. It introduces information-theoretic concepts (entropy, KL divergence, mutual information, KS statistic), defines common diversity indices (richness, Shannon index, evenness, Simpson indices, Berger-Parker) and unifies them through Hill numbers of order q, and introduces a clone-count representation. The core technical section derives how expected sample diversity relates to population diversity under two sampling protocols: 1×M sampling with replacement (multinomial) and M×1 sampling without replacement (hypergeometric). The remainder reviews applications in ecology, the gut microbiome, stem-cell barcoding, T- and B-cell repertoires, and wealth distributions, and concludes that there is no single universal diversity metric, recommending cross-checking of multiple indices with attention to sampling effects.

Significance. If corrected, the review would be a useful synthesis for a physical-biology audience: it collects Hill-number theory, information-theoretic identities, clone-count representations, and sampling formulas in one place, and connects them to concrete applications in ecology, hematopoiesis, immunology, and economics. The Hill-number limit derivations in Eqs. (15)-(25) are clear, and the hypergeometric moment calculation leading to Eq. (39) is correct. The paper is also honest about the well-mixed random-sampling assumption and about the absence of a universally best metric. However, because the paper is a definitions-and-methods review, its value rests on technical accuracy, and the errors described below affect central definitions and one of the two sampling conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (37) and text after Eq. (39)] The claim that the expected sample Simpson index without replacement equals the population value under both sampling protocols is not correct for the 1×M protocol. Under multinomial sampling, E[m_i(m_i−1)] = M(M−1) f_i^2, so E_{1×M}[S] = Σ_i f_i^2 = Sr (Eq. (23)), not S (Eq. (24)). The sentence after Eq. (39) must therefore be restricted to the M×1 protocol, for which Eq. (39) is correct. The discrepancy is not negligible in the small-population regime the paper itself highlights: for N=2 with one individual of each of two species, S=0 while Sr=0.5. A reader using the 1×M result would systematically mis-estimate the population Simpson index. Please correct Eq. (37), the surrounding text, and any downstream statements implying that both sampling protocols preserve the without-replacement index.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 7] Table 1 labels the evenness row as "Evenness (1D)", and Section 7 refers to "richness (q=0) and evenness (q=1)" as measures more prone to sampling effects. This conflates evenness with the order-q=1 Hill number. Equation (21) defines Shannon equitability as JE = Sh/ln R, while Eq. (19) shows that 1D = exp(Sh) is the effective number of species (Shannon diversity). Evenness is a normalized quantity derived from a Hill number, not itself a Hill number of order 1. Please relabel the table row and correct the Section 7 sentence, since the paper's organizing message is that common indices are special cases of Hill numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2, Figure 3] The linear regression in Fig. 3 is presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or goodness-of-fit statistics; because the text cites z=0.29 as an illustration of the species-area exponent, please add at least R² or a standard error and state how the regression was performed.
  2. [Equation (21)] Shannon equitability JE = Sh/ln R is undefined for R=1 because ln R=0; a brief caveat or a limiting definition for the single-species case would avoid confusion.
  3. [Equation (33)] The indicator notation 1(M, Σ_i m_i) is used before the Fourier representation 1(x,y) is introduced; please define the discrete indicator function at first use in Eq. (33) to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section 6.6, Eq. (52)] The phrase "is the Legendre transform at f*" is imprecise for the Hoover index: H is the supremum of |f−W(f)|, and for convex Lorenz curves the maximizing point is characterized by dW/df=1. Please rephrase to avoid suggesting that H itself is a Legendre transform.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review derives diversity indices and sampling relations from definitions and external results, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

This is a topical review whose load-bearing content (Hill numbers qD = (Σ f_i^q)^{1/(1-q)} unify richness, Shannon, Simpson; clone counts c_k satisfy N = Σ k c_k and R = Σ c_k; sampling moments follow from multinomial and hypergeometric combinatorics) is derived from explicit definitions and standard external results. The cited prior work by the authors (e.g., Goyal et al. 2015, Dessalles et al. 2018, Xu et al. 2018) is used only as application examples of BDI models and clone-count inference, not as justification for the diversity definitions, the Hill-number synthesis, or the concluding claim that there is no golden rule in choosing a unique metric. That conclusion rests on the stated examples of contradictory indices (Nagendra 2002) and on sampling sensitivity (Soetaert and Heip 1990). The paper also explicitly acknowledges the limitation that the P_{1×M} and P_{M×1} results require perfectly random sampling, so the assumption is stated rather than hidden. The sampling section contains a notational slip: Eq. (37) writes E_{1×M}[S] = Σ f_i^2 ≡ S, which conflicts with Eq. (24) where S = Σ n_i(n_i−1)/(N(N−1)); this is a mathematical inconsistency, not a circular reduction of a predicted quantity to a fitted input. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its own input, and no load-bearing conclusion is imported from the authors' prior work. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no invented entities and only one illustrative fitted parameter (species-area exponent). The load-bearing assumptions are the well-mixed random sampling model, the existence of a reference density for continuous entropy, and the discreteness of species types. These are all flagged by the authors.

free parameters (1)
  • Species-area power-law parameters (c, z) = z = 0.29; c not reported
    Linear regression to long-horned beetle species counts on Florida Keys islands (Fig. 3); illustrative only, not load-bearing for the review's central message.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The point-density P0(x) in Eq. (4) exists and the limit in Eq. (5) is well-behaved.
    Invoked in Section 2 to define a reparameterization-invariant continuous entropy; if the limit fails, the continuous entropy formula Eq. (7) is not valid.
  • domain assumption Sampling is perfectly random and well-mixed for the reviewed applications.
    Stated explicitly in Section 5; underpins all sample-to-population diversity relationships in the review.
  • domain assumption Species/types are discrete and distinguishable after binning, so number counts n_i and clone counts c_k are well-defined.
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4; Fig. 2 shows diversity depends on the binning resolution, so the assumption is acknowledged but load-bearing.
  • standard math Standard probability calculus and information-theoretic identities (Shannon entropy, KL divergence, Jensen-Shannon divergence).
    Used throughout Section 2 without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diversity in Biology: definitions, quantification, and models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HGBOUDY

@misc{pith2026190808190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diversity in Biology: definitions, quantification, and models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HGBOUDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08190}
}
read the original abstract

Diversity indices are useful single-number metrics for characterizing a complex distribution of a set of attributes across a population of interest. The utility of these different metrics or sets of metrics depend on the context and application, and whether a predictive mechanistic model exists. In this topical review, we first summarize the relevant mathematical principles underlying heterogeneity in a large population before outlining the various definitions of `diversity' and providing examples of scientific topics in which its quantification plays an important role. We then review how diversity has been a ubiquitous concept across multiple fields including ecology, immunology, cellular barcoding experiments, and socioeconomic studies. Since many of these applications involve sampling of populations, we also review how diversity in small samples is related to the diversity in the entire population. Features that arise in each of these applications are highlighted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of complex, multicomponent populations in which diversity may be a meaningful quantitative concept. (a) Diversity in island ecology. A large number of species may migrate onto an island. Organisms can proliferate and die, leading to a specific time-dependent pattern of species diversity on the island. (b) Microbes are ingested and form a community in the gut by proliferating, competing, and dying. They can … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number counts and clone counts vary depending on the definition and binning of traits or species identity. Both the number counts and clone count distributions can vary significantly as the distinguishability threshold is changed as shown in (a)-(c) and (d)-(f) where the resolution is coarsened. 4. Clone count representation An alternative way of quantifying a population is through the species abundance distribution… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of ln R versus ln A with area A measured in terms of km2 . Species counts of long-horned beetles in the Florida Keys are plotted against the island size [97]. The linear regression line yields a slope of z = 0.29. Usually, fits of the species-area exponent z yield a small number. The classic book by MacArthur and Wilson [96] and many subsequent analyses have promoted and extensively analyzed the SAR idea. In Ma… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequencies of approximately 200 species of bacteria distributed across about a dozen phyla. (a) Group 1 depicts the relative species abundance distribution in samples from patients with Crohn’s disease while (b) Group 2 shows the species pattern in normal patients. Th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Protocol for Viral Integration Site (VIS) barcode studies of hematopoiesis in rhesus macaque [117, 118, 55]. Here, ‘barcodes’ are defined by the random integration sites of a lentiviral vector. (b) Xenograft barcode experiments using mice [119] in which a library o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The fractional populations of the largest clones (barcodes) detected in granulocyte blood samples from rhesus macaque. Relative populations are described by the distances between neighboring curves. (b) Diversity indices derived from the data in (a). The Simpson’s …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A simple multispecies birth-death-immigration (BDI) process [55, 136, 137, 138]. A constant source (i.e., stem cells with slow dynamics) generated by 16 cells, each of a different clone, undergo asymmetric differentiation with rate α to produce differentiated cells tha…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of recently published clone count data. (a) Clone counts derived from a small sample (105 sequences) of T cells [142]. Note the broad distribution described by a biphasic power-law curve. Ignoring the largest clones, power-law fits for each regime yield slopes…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Ordering of all N = 100 individuals in increasing wealth or income. The hypothetical wealth distributions plotted are wi = 3 (equal wealth, black curve), wi = 10 + (i − 1)/2 (linear distribution, red), wi = 5 + e i/5−15 − e−14.8 (green), and wi = 14.5 + 50/(101 − i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

182 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nei M 1973 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 70 3321–3323

    1973

  2. [2]

    1995 Global biodiversity assessment vol 1140 (Cambridge University Press Cambridge)

    Heywood V H, W atson R T et al. 1995 Global biodiversity assessment vol 1140 (Cambridge University Press Cambridge)

    1995

  3. [3]

    Purvis A and Hector A 2000 Nature 405 212

    2000

  4. [4]

    Whittaker R J, Willis K J and Field R 2001 Journal of Biogeography 28 453–470

    2001

  5. [5]

    2000 Science 287 1770–1774

    Sala O E, Chapin F S, Armesto J J, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke L F, Jackson R B, Kinzig A et al. 2000 Science 287 1770–1774

    2000

  6. [6]

    Fisher R A, Corbet A S and Williams C B 1943 The Journal of Animal Ecology 42–58

    1943

  7. [7]

    Magurran A E 1988 Ecological diversity and its measure- ment (Princeton University Press)

    1988

  8. [8]

    Benton M J 1995 Science 268 52–58

    1995

Show all 182 references
  1. [9]

    Courtillot V and Gaudemer Y 1996 Nature 381 146

    1996

  2. [10]

    Alroy J 2004 Evolutionary Ecology Research 6 1–32

    2004

  3. [11]

    Stollmeier F, Geisel T and Nagler J 2014 Physical Review Letters 112 228101

    2014

  4. [12]

    Blume M E, Crockett J and Friend I 1974 Survey of Current Business 54 16–40

    1974

  5. [13]

    Blume M E and Friend I 1975 The Journal of Finance 30 585–603

    1975

  6. [14]

    Rajan R, Servaes H and Zingales L 2000 The Journal of Finance 55 35–80

    2000

  7. [15]

    Goetzmann W N and Kumar A 2008 Review of Finance 12 433–463

    2008

  8. [16]

    Haldane A G and May R M 2011 Nature 469 351

    2011

  9. [17]

    Greenberg J H 1956 Language 32 109–115

    1956

  10. [18]

    Yule C U 2014 The statistical study of literary vocabulary (Cambridge University Press)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Bailey K D 1990 Social entropy theory (SUNY Press, Albany, NY)

    1990

  12. [20]

    Balch T 2000 Autonomous Robots 8 209–238

    2000

  13. [21]

    Neckerman K M and Torche F 2007 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33 335–357

    2007

  14. [22]

    Ostrom E 2009 Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton University Press)

    2009

  15. [23]

    M¨ as M, Flache A, Tak´ acs K and Jehn K A 2013 Organization Science 24 716–736

    2013

  16. [24]

    Domina T, Penner A and Penner E 2017 Annual Review of Sociology 43 311–330

    2017

  17. [25]

    Sepkoski J J 1988 Paleobiology 14 221–234

    1988

  18. [26]

    Ricotta C 2005 Acta Biotheoretica 53 29–38

    2005

  19. [27]

    Simpson E H 1949 Nature 163 688

    1949

  20. [28]

    Hurlbert S H 1971 Ecology 52 577–586

    1971

  21. [29]

    Sarkar S 2006 Acta Biotheoretica 54 133–140

    2006

  22. [30]

    Series B: Biological Sciences 353 315–326

    John Sepkoski Jr J 1998 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 353 315–326

    1998

  23. [31]

    Margules C R and Pressey R L 2000 Nature 405 243

    2000

  24. [32]

    Herrnstein R J and Murray C 1994 The Bell Curve (Free Press)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Lorenz M O 1905 Publications of the American Statistical Association 9 209–219

    1905

  26. [34]

    Edgar Malone Hoover J 1936 Review of Economics and Statistics 18 162–171

    1936

  27. [35]

    Esteban J M and Ray D 1994 Econometrica 62 819–851

    1994

  28. [36]

    Duclos J Y, Esteban J and Ray D 2004 Econometrica 72 1737–1772

    2004

  29. [37]

    Grubb M, Butler L and Twomey P 2006 Energy Policy 34 4050–4062

    2006

  30. [38]

    Cover T M and Thomas J A 2012 Elements of information theory (John Wiley & Sons)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Jaynes E T 1963 Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics Statistical Physics ed Ford K (Benjamin, New York) p 181 Biological Diversity 20

    1963

  32. [40]

    Lazo A and Rathie P 1978 IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 24 120–122

    1978

  33. [41]

    Spellerberg I F and Fedor P J 2003 Global Ecology and Biogeography 12 177–179

    2003

  34. [42]

    Lin J 1991 IEEE Transactions on Information theory 37 145–151

    1991

  35. [43]

    Hill M O 1973 Ecology 54 427–432

    1973

  36. [44]

    Tuomisto H 2010 Oecologia 164 853–860

    2010

  37. [45]

    Tuomisto H 2010 Ecography 33 2–22

    2010

  38. [46]

    Jost L 2007 Ecology 88 2427–2439

    2007

  39. [47]

    R´ enyi A et al. 1961 On measures of entropy and infor- mation Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Contributions to the Theory of Statistics (The Regents of the University of California)

    1961

  40. [48]

    Jost L 2006 Oikos 113 363–375

    2006

  41. [49]

    Heip C 1974 Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 54 555–557

    1974

  42. [50]

    Sethian J A 1999 Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods: Evolving Interfaces in Computational Geom- etry, Fluid Mechanics, Computer Vision, and Materi- als Science (Cambridge University Press)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Kittel C 1996 Introduction to Solid State Physics, 7 th Edition (Wiley)

    1996

  44. [52]

    W attis J A D and King J R 1998 Journal of Physics A 31 7169

    1998

  45. [53]

    D’Orsogna M R, Lakatos G and Chou T 2012 The Journal of Chemical Physics 136 084110

    2012

  46. [54]

    D’Orsogna M R, Lei Q and Chou T 2015 Journal of Chemical Physics 139 014112

    2015

  47. [55]

    Goyal S, Kim S, Chen I S Y and Chou T 2015 BMC Biology 13 85

    2015

  48. [56]

    Villela D A M, Garcia G d A and Maciel-de Freitas R 2017 PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 11 1–20

    2017

  49. [57]

    Epopa P S, Millogo A A, Collins C M, North A, Tripet F, Benedict M Q and Diabate A 2017 Parasites & vectors 10 376

    2017

  50. [58]

    Cianci D, Broek J V D, Caputo B, Marini F, Torre A D, Heesterbeek H and Hartemink N 2013 Journal of Medical Entomology 50 533–542

    2013

  51. [59]

    Gotelli N J and Chao A 2013 Measuring and estimating species richness, species diversity, and biotic similarit y from sampling data Encyclopedia of Biodiversity vol 5 (Academic Press) pp 195–211

    2013

  52. [60]

    Chao A, Gotelli N J, Hsieh T, Sander E L, Ma K, Colwell R K and Ellison A M 2014 Ecological Monographs 84 45–67

    2014

  53. [61]

    Fisher R A, Corbet A S and Williams C B 1943 The Journal of Animal Ecology 12 42–58

    1943

  54. [62]

    Bunge J and Fitzpatrick M 1993 Journal of the American Statistical Association 88 364–373

    1993

  55. [63]

    Hsieh T C and Chao A 2016 Systematic Biology 66 100– 111

    2016

  56. [64]

    Cox K D, Black M J, Filip N, Miller M R, Mohns K, Mortimor J, Freitas T R, Greiter Loerzer R, Gerwing T G, Juanes F and Dudas S E 2017 Ecology and Evolution 7 11213–11226

    2017

  57. [65]

    Budka A, Lacka A and Szoszkiewicz K 2019 Biodiversity and Conservation 28 385–400

    2019

  58. [66]

    Chao A, W ang Y and Jost L 2013 Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4 1091–1100

    2013

  59. [67]

    Efron B and Thisted R 1976 Biometrika 63 435–447

    1976

  60. [68]

    Orlitsky A, Suresh A T and W u Y 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 13283–13288

    2016

  61. [69]

    Willis A and Bunge J 2015 Biometrics 71 1042–1049

    2015

  62. [70]

    Willis A 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 E5096–E5096

    2016

  63. [71]

    Chao A 1984 Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 265–270

    1984

  64. [72]

    Chao A 1987 Biometrics 783–791

    1987

  65. [73]

    Shen T J, Chao A and Lin C F 2003 Ecology 84 798–804

    2003

  66. [74]

    Hsieh T C, Ma K H and Chao A 2016 Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7 1451–1456

    2016

  67. [75]

    Curtis T P, Sloan W T and Scannell J W 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 10494–10499

    2002

  68. [76]

    Locey K J and Lennon J T 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 5970–5975

    2016

  69. [77]

    Locey K J and Lennon J T 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 E5097–E5097

    2016

  70. [78]

    Hutchinson G E 1961 The American Naturalist 95 137– 145

    1961

  71. [79]

    Hardin G 1960 Science 131 1292–1297

    1960

  72. [80]

    MacArthur R H 1965 Biological Reviews 40 510–533

    1965

  73. [81]

    Whittaker R H 1960 Ecological Monographs 30 279–338

    1960

  74. [82]

    Whittaker R H 1977 Evolutionary Biology 10 1–67

    1977

  75. [83]

    Lande R 1996 Oikos 76 5–13

    1996

  76. [84]

    Contoli L and Luiselli L 2015 Web Ecology 15 33–37

    2015

  77. [85]

    Hui C and McGeoch M A 2014 American Naturalist 184 684–694

    2014

  78. [86]

    Jaccard P 1900 Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat 36 87–130

    1900

  79. [87]

    Margalef D R 1957 Memorias de la Real Academica de ciencias y artes de Barcelona 32 374–559

    1957

  80. [88]

    Menhinick E F 1964 Ecology 45 859–861

    1964

  81. [89]

    Bray J and Curtis J 1957 An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin.-ecological Monographs

    1957

  82. [90]

    Berger W H and Parker F L 1970 Science 168 1345–1347

    1970

  83. [91]

    Fager E W 1957 Ecology 38 586–595

    1957

  84. [92]

    Keefe T J and Bergersen E P 1977 Water Research 11 689–691

    1977

  85. [93]

    McIntosh R P 1967 Ecology 48 392–404

    1967

  86. [94]

    Patil G and Taillie C 1982 Journal of the American Statistical Association 77 548–561

    1982

  87. [95]

    Gleason H A 1922 Ecology 3 158–162

    1922

  88. [96]

    MacArthur R and Wilson E O 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)

    1967

  89. [97]

    Browne J and Peck S B 1996 Canadian Journal of Zoology 74 2154–2169

    1996

  90. [98]

    Volkov I, Banavar J R, Hubbell S P and Maritan A 2003 Nature 424 1035–1037

    2003

  91. [99]

    Connor E F and McCoy E D 1979 American Naturalist 113 791–833

    1979

  92. [100]

    He F and Legendre P 2002 Ecology 83 1185–1198

    2002

  93. [101]

    Mart ´ ın H G and Goldenfeld N 2006 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 10310–10315

    2006

  94. [102]

    Park S Y, Nanda S, Faraci G, Park Y and Lee H Y 2019 Journal of Biomedical Informatics: X 2 100040

    2019

  95. [103]

    Wilson B C, Vatanen T, Cutfield W S and O’Sullivan J M 2019 Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 9 2

    2019

  96. [104]

    Tian H, Ge X, Nie Y, Yang L, Ding C, McFarland L V, Zhang X, Chen Q, Gong J and Li N 2017 PLoS ONE 12 e0171308

    2017

  97. [105]

    Proctor L M, Sechi S, DiGiacomo N D, Fettweis J M, Jefferson K K, III J F S, Rubens C E, Brooks J P, Girerd P P, Huang B, Serrano M G, Sheth N U, Vivadelli S C, Asmussen N C, Borzelleca J F, Bradley S P, Brooks J L, Chalfant C E, Dickinson M R, Drake J I, Edwards D J, Khoury J ...

    2014

  98. [106]

    Human Microbiome Project URL https://hmpdacc.org/

  99. [107]

    Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf K S, Manichanh C, Nielsen T, Pons N, Levenez F, Yamada T, Mende D R, Li J, Xu J, Li S, Li D, Cao J, W ang B, Liang H, Zheng H, Xie Y, Tap J, Lepage P, Bertalan M, Batto J M, Hansen T, Paslier D L, Linneberg A, Nielsen H B, Pelletier E,...

    2010

  100. [108]

    Nelson ed.) (Springer Science+Business Media) chap 15

    Ehrlich S D and the MetaHIT Consortium 2011 MetaHIT: The European Union Project on Metagenomics of the Human Intestinal Tract Metagenomics of the human body (K. Nelson ed.) (Springer Science+Business Media) chap 15

    2011

  101. [109]

    MetaHIT W ebsite URL http://www.metahit.eu

  102. [110]

    Li J, Jia H, Cai X, Zhong H, Feng Q, Sunagawa S, Arumugam M, Kultima J R, Prifti E, Nielsen T, Juncker A S, Manichanh C, Chen B, Zhang W, Levenez F, W ang J, Xu X, Xiao L, Liang S, Zhang D, Zhang Z, Chen W, Zhao H, Al-Aama J Y, Edris S, Yang H, W ang J, Hansen T, Nielsen H B, ...

    2014

  103. [111]

    Vetrovsk´ y T and Baldrian P 2013 PLoS ONE 8 e57923

    2013

  104. [112]

    Metabolomic W orkbench URL https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org/

  105. [113]

    Ribosome Database Project URL http://rdp.cme.msu.edu/

  106. [114]

    EZBioCloud URL https://www.ezbiocloud.net/

  107. [115]

    Shreiner A B, Kao J Y and Young V B 2015 Current Opinion in Gastroenterology 31 69–75

    2015

  108. [116]

    Thursby E and Juge N 2017 Biochemical Journal 474 1823–1836

    2017

  109. [117]

    Kim S, Kim N, Presson A P, Metzger M E, Bonifacino A C, Sehl M, Chow S A, Crooks G M, Dunbar C E, An D S, Donahue R E and Chen I S 2014 Cell Stem Cell 14 473–485

    2014

  110. [118]

    W u C, Li B, Lu R, Koelle S J, Yang Y, Jares A, Krouse A E, Metzger M, Liang F, Lor´ e K, W u C O, Donahue R E, Chen I S Y, W eissman I and Dunbar C E 2014 Cell Stem Cell 14 486–499

    2014

  111. [119]

    Belderbos M E, Koster T, Ausema B, Jacobs S, Sowdagar S, Zwart E, de Bont E, de Haan G and Bystrykh L V 2017 Blood 129 3210–3220

    2017

  112. [120]

    Series B: Biological Sciences 270 313–321

    Hebert P D, Cywinska A, Ball S L and deW aard J R 2003 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270 313–321

    2003

  113. [121]

    Hebert P D N, Stoeckle M Y, Zemlak T S and Francis C M 2004 PLoS Biology 2 e312

    2004

  114. [122]

    Ratnasingham S and Hebert P D N 2007 Molecular Ecology Notes 7 355–364

    2007

  115. [123]

    The Barcode of Life Data System URL http://www.barcodinglife.org

  116. [124]

    Kress W J, W urdack K J, Zimmer E A, W eigt L A and Janzen D H 2005 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 8369–8374

    2005

  117. [125]

    Sgamma T, Masiero E, Mali P, Mahat M and Slater A 2018 Frontiers in Plant Science 9 1828

    2018

  118. [126]

    Bruno A, Sandionigi A, Agostinetto G, Bernabovi L, Frigerio J, Casiraghi M and Labra M 2019 Genes 10 248

    2019

  119. [127]

    Hawkins J A, Jones S K, Finkelstein I J and Press W H 2018 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 E6217–E6226

    2018

  120. [128]

    Thielecke L, Aranyossy T, Dahl A, Tiwari R, Roeder I, Geiger H, Fehse B, Glauche I and Cornils K 2017 Scientific Reports 7 43249

    2017

  121. [129]

    Tambe A and Pachter L 2019 BMC Bioinformatics 20 32

    2019

  122. [130]

    Sun J, Ramos A, Chapman B, Johnnidis J B, Le L, Ho Y J, Klein A, Hofmann O and Camargo F D 2014 Nature 514 322–327

    2014

  123. [131]

    Peri´ e L and Duffy K R 2016 FEBS letters 590 4068–4083

    2016

  124. [132]

    Blundell J R and Levy S F 2014 Genomics 104 417 – 430

    2014

  125. [133]

    Rogers Z N, McFarland C D, Winters I P, Seoane J A, Brady J J, Yoon S, Curtis C, Petrov D A and Winslow M M 2018 Nature Genetics 50 483–486

    2018

  126. [134]

    Akimov Y, Bulanova D, Abyzova M, W en- nerberg K and Aittokallio T 2019 bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/622506

    2019 doi

  127. [135]

    Koelle S J, Espinoza D A, W u C, Xu J, Lu R, Li B, Donahue R E and Dunbar C E 2017 Blood 129 1448– 1457

    2017

  128. [136]

    Xu S, Kim S, Chen I S and Chou T 2018 PLoS Computational Biology 14 e1006489

    2018

  129. [137]

    Dessalles R, D’Orsogna M and Chou T 2018 J. Stat. Phys. 173 182–221

    2018

  130. [138]

    thesis UCLA

    Xu S 2018 Mathematical Modeling of Clonal Dynamics in Primate Hematopoiesis Ph.D. thesis UCLA

    2018

  131. [139]

    2016 Cell Stem Cell 19 107–119

    Biasco L, Pellin D, Scala S, Dionisio F, Basso-Ricci L, Leonardelli L, Scaramuzza S, Baricordi C, Ferrua F, Cicalese M P et al. 2016 Cell Stem Cell 19 107–119

    2016

  132. [140]

    Alt F W, Oltz E M, Young F, Gorman J, Taccioli G and Chen J 1992 Immunology Today 13 306–314

    1992

  133. [141]

    Lythe G, Callard R E, Hoare R L and Molina-Par ´ ıs C 2016 Journal of Theoretical Biology 389 214–224 ISSN 0022-5193

    2016

  134. [142]

    Zarnitsyna V, Evavold B, Schoettle L, Blattman J and Antia R 2013 Frontiers in Immunology 4 485

    2013

  135. [143]

    Hoehn K B, Fowler A, Lunter G and Pybus O G 2016 Molecular Biology and Evolution 33 1147–1157

    2016

  136. [144]

    Yates A J 2014 Frontiers in Immunology 5 13

    2014

  137. [145]

    Casrouge A, Beaudoing E, Dalle S, Pannetier C, Kanellopoulos J and Kourilsky P 2000 Journal of Immunology 164 5782–5787

    2000

  138. [146]

    DeWitt W S, Lindau P, Snyder T M, Sherwood A M, Vignali M, Carlson C S, Greenberg P D, Duerkopp N, Emerson R O and Robins H S 2016 PLoS One 11 e0160853

    2016

  139. [147]

    Rosenfeld A M, Meng W, Chen D Y, Zhang B, Granot T, Farber D L, Hershberg U and Luning Prak E T 2018 Frontiers in Immunology 9 1472

    2018

  140. [148]

    Keane C, Gould C, Jones K, Hamm D, Talaulikar D, Ellis J, Vari F, Birch S, Han E, W ood P, Le-Cao K A, Green M R, Crooks P, Jain S, Tobin J, Steptoe R J and Gandhi M K 2017 Clinical Cancer Research 23 1820–1828

    2017

  141. [149]

    Sethna Z, Elhanati Y, Dudgeon C R, Callan C G, Levine A J, Mora T and W alczak A M 2017 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 2253–2258

    2017

  142. [150]

    Oakes T, Heather J M, Best K, Byng-Maddick R, Husovsky C, Ismail M, Joshi K, Maxwell G, Nour- sadeghi M, Riddell N, Ruehl T, Turner C T, Uddin I and Chain B 2017 Frontiers in Immunology 8 1267

    2017

  143. [151]

    Aguilera-Sandoval C R, OYang O, Jojic N, Lovato P, Chen D Y, Boechat M I, Cooper P, Zuo J, Ramirez C, Belzer M, Church J A, and Krogstad P 2017 AIDS 30 701–711

    2017

  144. [152]

    Lythe G and Molina-Par ´ ıs C 2018 Immunological Reviews 285 206–217

    2018

  145. [153]

    Xu S and Chou T 2018 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51 425602 Biological Diversity 22

    2018

  146. [154]

    Marcou Q, Mora T and W alczak A M 2018 Nature Communications 9 561

    2018

  147. [155]

    Sethna Z, Elhanati Y, Callan Curtis G J, W alczak A M and Mora T 2019 Bioinformatics 35 2974–2981 ISSN 1367-4803

    2019

  148. [156]

    Dessalles R, D’Orsogna M and Chou T 2019 submitted to: PLoS Computational Biology

    2019

  149. [157]

    Johnson P, Yates A, Goronzy J and Antia R 2012 Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences USA 109 21432–21437

    2012

  150. [158]

    Rane S, Hogan T, Seddon B and Yates A J 2018 PLoS Computational Biology 16 e2003949

    2018

  151. [159]

    Lewkiewicz S, Chuang Y L and Chou T 2018 Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 81 2783–2817

    2018

  152. [160]

    Egorov E S, Kasatskaya S A, Zubov V N, Izraelson M, Nakonechnaya T O, Staroverov D B, Angius A, Cucca F, Mamedov I Z, Rosati E, Franke A, Shugay M, Pogorelyy M V, Chudakov D M and Britanova O V 2018 Frontiers in Immunology 9 1618

    2018

  153. [161]

    den Braber I, Mugwagwa T, Vrisekoop N, W estera L, M¨ ogling R, Bregje de Boer A, Willems N, Schrijver E H R, Spierenburg G, Gaiser K, Mul E, Otto S A, Ruiter A F C, Ackermans M T, Miedema F, Borghans J A M, de Boer R J and Tesselaar K 2012 Immunity 36 288–297

    2012

  154. [162]

    Maignan C, Ottaviano G, Pinelli D and Rullani F 2003 Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei

    2003

  155. [163]

    Pizetti E, Salvemini, T)

    Gini C 1912 Reprinted in Memorie di metodologica statistica (Ed. Pizetti E, Salvemini, T). Rome: Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi

    1912

  156. [164]

    Gastwirth J L 1972 The Review of Economics and Statistics 54 306–316

    1972

  157. [165]

    Atkinson A B and Micklewright J 1992 Economic transformation in Eastern Europe and the distribution of income (Cambridge University Press)

    1992

  158. [166]

    Kennedy B P, Kawachi I and Prothrow-Stith D 1996 British Medical Journal 312 1004–1007

    1996

  159. [167]

    Galichon A 2017 Optimal Transport Methods in Eco- nomics (Princeton University Press)

    2017

  160. [168]

    Theil H 1972 Statistical decomposition analysis; wit h applications in the social and administrative sciences Tech. rep

    1972

  161. [169]

    Novotn` y J 2007 The Annals of Regional Science 41 563– 580

    2007

  162. [170]

    2014 Decomposition of regional income inequality and neighborhood com- ponent: A spatial Theil Index Tech

    Lasarte E, Paniagua M A M et al. 2014 Decomposition of regional income inequality and neighborhood com- ponent: A spatial Theil Index Tech. rep. Instituto Va- lenciano de Investigaciones Econ´ omicas, SA (Ivie)

    2014

  163. [171]

    Maio F G D 2007 Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61 849–852

    2007

  164. [172]

    B¨ ottcher L, Montealegre P, Goles E and Gersbach H 2019 Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 123713

    2019

  165. [173]

    Kawada Y, Nakamura Y and Sunada K 2018 Economics Letters 169 35–27

    2018

  166. [174]

    D’Ambrosio C and W olff E N 2006 Is W ealth Becoming More Polarized in the United States? International Perspectives on Household Wealth Chapters (Edward Elgar Publishing) chap 12

    2006

  167. [175]

    D’Ambrosio C 2001 Review of Income and Wealth 47 43– 64

    2001

  168. [176]

    W ang Y Q and Tsui K Y 2000 Journal of Public Economic Theory 2 349–363

    2000

  169. [177]

    W olfson M C 1994 American Economic Review 84 353– 358

    1994

  170. [178]

    Bailey K D 1990 Systems Practice 3 365–382

    1990

  171. [179]

    Venturi V, Kedzierska K, Turner S J, Doherty P C and Davenport M P 2007 Journal of Immunological Methods 321 182–195

    2007

  172. [180]

    Soetaertl K and Heip C 1990 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 59 305–307

    1990

  173. [181]

    Lewis J E, DeGusta D, Meyer M R, Monge J M, Mann A E and Holloway R L 2011 PLoS Biology 9 1–6

    2011

  174. [182]

    Nagendra H 2002 Applied Geography 22 175–186

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.