Biodiversity & Nature
Beta diversity
The turnover of species between sites or habitats — Whittaker's middle scale of diversity, linking local (alpha) richness to regional (gamma) diversity.
Definition
The variation in species composition among sites within a region — the extent to which different habitats host different species. In Robert Whittaker's 1972 framework, beta diversity multiplicatively links alpha diversity (within-site richness) and gamma diversity (total regional diversity): gamma ≈ alpha × beta. High beta diversity means sites are compositionally distinct; low beta diversity means the same species recur everywhere (biotic homogenisation).
References
Whittaker's alpha/beta/gamma framework; beta as turnover between sites; measurement approaches.
Overview
What it means
Beta diversity captures something alpha diversity cannot: whether a landscape is a mosaic of distinct communities or a uniform blur. Two regions with identical average alpha diversity can differ hugely in conservation value if one has high turnover (many unique local communities) and the other has been homogenised by disturbance and invasive generalists.
How it is used
Ecologists measure beta diversity with dissimilarity indices (for example Jaccard or Bray–Curtis) to assess fragmentation effects, design protected-area networks (protecting complementary sites, not just the richest ones), and track biotic homogenisation under global change. It informs landscape-level conservation planning and restoration targets.
Why it matters
Conservation that protects only local richness can still lose regional diversity if all sites converge on the same species. Beta diversity is the scale at which landscape structure and connectivity — core to 30×30 planning — are measured.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and an editorial decision to attribute them.
Submitted reviews stay private until an editor decides whether to accept and attribute them.
Contribute to this entry
Help improve this definition
Your contribution is private while it is checked. Nothing changes on this page unless an editor accepts it.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.