Using compiled species lists to make biodiversity comparisons among regions: A test case using Oregon butterflies

Using compiled species lists to make biodiversity comparisons among regions: A test case using... We explore two methods that correct for differential sampling effort when estimating the true number of species in a region based on samples such as those typically recorded in museum or conservation databases. The two methods are: (1) a phenomenological model that relies on a saturating sampling curve; and (2) a model based on a lognormal distribution of species abundances. We test these methods using a database for the butterflies of Oregon and find that the distribution of high-diversity areas, using the estimated, or “asymptotic”, diversities, is strikingly different from the geographic pattern one would deduce if the raw data were used, without correcting for differential sampling effort. Further, we show that differences in accuracy exist between the two estimation procedures, and that these differences are aggravated at small sample sizes; we argue that estimates based on the lognormal distribution should be preferred because they can offer substantial improvement over analyses based solely on the raw data, generally without risking overestimation. Lastly, using both the database and estimated values of butterfly diversity, we show that the distribution of endangered and numerically rare butterflies rarely coincides with “hotspots” or centers of biodiversity. Thus, protecting regions of Oregon rich in overall butterfly diversity will not normally protect the bulk of rare or endangered butterfly species. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

Using compiled species lists to make biodiversity comparisons among regions: A test case using Oregon butterflies

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/using-compiled-species-lists-to-make-biodiversity-comparisons-among-vnZEnNGvRa
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00144-9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We explore two methods that correct for differential sampling effort when estimating the true number of species in a region based on samples such as those typically recorded in museum or conservation databases. The two methods are: (1) a phenomenological model that relies on a saturating sampling curve; and (2) a model based on a lognormal distribution of species abundances. We test these methods using a database for the butterflies of Oregon and find that the distribution of high-diversity areas, using the estimated, or “asymptotic”, diversities, is strikingly different from the geographic pattern one would deduce if the raw data were used, without correcting for differential sampling effort. Further, we show that differences in accuracy exist between the two estimation procedures, and that these differences are aggravated at small sample sizes; we argue that estimates based on the lognormal distribution should be preferred because they can offer substantial improvement over analyses based solely on the raw data, generally without risking overestimation. Lastly, using both the database and estimated values of butterfly diversity, we show that the distribution of endangered and numerically rare butterflies rarely coincides with “hotspots” or centers of biodiversity. Thus, protecting regions of Oregon rich in overall butterfly diversity will not normally protect the bulk of rare or endangered butterfly species.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Jun 1, 1997

References

  • World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies
    Pearson, D.L.; Cassola, F.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off