Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Decision-making›Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity
MCDMDissimilarity index

Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity

Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity Index · Also known as: Bray-Curtis index, Sorensen-Bray-Curtis, percentage difference

Bray-Curtis dissimilarity is a quantitative measure of compositional difference between two samples, widely used in ecology and community analysis. Introduced by John Bray and John T. Curtis in 1957 for comparing forest communities, this index ranges from 0 (identical composition) to 1 (completely different). It is sensitive to abundance differences and is particularly effective for abundance data such as species counts, microbial populations, or preference intensities.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity
Canberra DistanceHellinger DistanceSorensen-Dice Coefficient

When to use it

Bray-Curtis dissimilarity is ideal for comparing compositional data such as species abundance, microbial community profiles, or preference distributions. It works well when relative abundance is more important than absolute counts and when you have positive-valued data. Use it in ecology, microbiology, community analysis, and decision-making with intensity preferences. It is sensitive to dominant species or attributes, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on context.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Intuitive interpretation for ecological and compositional data; ranges from 0 to 1
  • Sensitive to both presence and abundance; emphasizes dominant features
  • Robust and stable with different community sizes
  • Widely adopted in ecology, microbiology, and environmental science with extensive validation
Limitations
  • Not invariant to transformation; scaling affects the result unless data is normalized first
  • Sensitive to rare species or attributes; not suitable when rare elements should not influence distance
  • Assumes positive, count-like data; negative values are not interpretable
  • Does not account for phylogenetic or hierarchical relationships between attributes

Frequently asked

How does Bray-Curtis dissimilarity differ from Euclidean distance?

Euclidean distance measures spatial separation in absolute terms; Bray-Curtis measures compositional difference as a proportion of total abundance. Bray-Curtis is bounded [0,1] and is normalized by total abundance, making it more suitable for compositional and count data.

Can Bray-Curtis be used with presence-absence data?

While it works with binary data, presence-absence data is better analyzed with Sorensen-Dice or Jaccard indices, which are designed for binary similarity. Bray-Curtis is optimized for abundance data.

Does data normalization matter for Bray-Curtis dissimilarity?

Yes. Bray-Curtis is not invariant to scaling, so if samples have different total abundances due to sampling effort differences, normalization (e.g., to relative proportions) is recommended before comparison.

What does a Bray-Curtis value of 0.5 mean?

A Bray-Curtis value of 0.5 indicates that 50% of the total abundance is shared or overlaps between the two samples. The remaining 50% is unique or different between them, representing moderate compositional similarity.

Sources

  1. Bray, J. R., & Curtis, J. T. (1957). An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs, 27(4), 325-349. DOI: 10.2307/1942268 ↗
  2. Sorensen, T. (1948). A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter, 5, 1-34. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity Index. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/bray-curtis-dissimilarity

Related methods

Canberra DistanceHellinger DistanceSorensen-Dice Coefficient

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Canberra DistanceDecision-making↔ compare
  • Hellinger DistanceDecision-making↔ compare
  • Sorensen-Dice CoefficientDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Canberra DistanceSorensen-Dice Coefficient

Similar methods

Sorensen-Dice CoefficientBeta Diversity PartitioningIndicator ValueCanberra DistanceBiodiversity Index in ForestsSpecies AccumulationMachine learning-assisted microbiome diversity analysisGower Distance

Related reference concepts

Species Richness and Diversity IndicesCommunity Structure and DiversityBiodiversity Patterns and MeasurementMultidimensional ScalingCommunity EcologyCluster Analysis

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity (Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity Index). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/bray-curtis-dissimilarity · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
John Bray and John T. Curtis
Subfamily
Dissimilarity index
Year
1957
Type
Ecological community similarity measure
Related methods
Canberra DistanceHellinger DistanceSorensen-Dice Coefficient
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account