A Possible Method for the Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity

A Possible Method for the Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Inventories of vertebrate and flowering plants are frequently used as surrogates for estimates of total biodiversity. This is in part because the inclusion of invertebrates and nonflowering plants is perceived as being too time‐consuming, costly, and difficult because of the shortage of specialists. Estimates of the species richness of field samples of spiders, ants, polychaetes, and mosses made by a biodiversity technician and by specialist taxonomists were compared. The biodiversity technician received a few hours training in the taxonomy of each group and separated specimens into recognizable taxonomic units (RTUs). The specialists sorted to species. For the three animal groups the biodiversity technician recorded 165 taxa and the specialists 147, with the error for the ants and spiders being 13% or less. A small amount of splitting and lumping of species was detected. The concordance of estimates remained very similar when small subsamples were used. The procedure was repeated by 13 undergraduates using a subsample of spiders. Their average error was 14.4%. The greatest similarity in estimates was for the mosses, but with high levels of splitting and lumping this result was entirely fortuitous. The results suggest that RTU estimates made by biodiversity technicians may be sufficiently close to formal taxonomic estimates of species richness to be useful for the rapid assessment of biodiversity. They also show, however, that the procedures outlined here should be used on invertebrate and nonflowering plant groups before they can be confidently included in biodiversity surveys. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

A Possible Method for the Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity

Conservation Biology, Volume 7 (3) – Sep 1, 1993

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/a-possible-method-for-the-rapid-assessment-of-biodiversity-77zaLXm09k
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
"Copyright © 1993 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company"
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030562.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Inventories of vertebrate and flowering plants are frequently used as surrogates for estimates of total biodiversity. This is in part because the inclusion of invertebrates and nonflowering plants is perceived as being too time‐consuming, costly, and difficult because of the shortage of specialists. Estimates of the species richness of field samples of spiders, ants, polychaetes, and mosses made by a biodiversity technician and by specialist taxonomists were compared. The biodiversity technician received a few hours training in the taxonomy of each group and separated specimens into recognizable taxonomic units (RTUs). The specialists sorted to species. For the three animal groups the biodiversity technician recorded 165 taxa and the specialists 147, with the error for the ants and spiders being 13% or less. A small amount of splitting and lumping of species was detected. The concordance of estimates remained very similar when small subsamples were used. The procedure was repeated by 13 undergraduates using a subsample of spiders. Their average error was 14.4%. The greatest similarity in estimates was for the mosses, but with high levels of splitting and lumping this result was entirely fortuitous. The results suggest that RTU estimates made by biodiversity technicians may be sufficiently close to formal taxonomic estimates of species richness to be useful for the rapid assessment of biodiversity. They also show, however, that the procedures outlined here should be used on invertebrate and nonflowering plant groups before they can be confidently included in biodiversity surveys.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Sep 1, 1993

There are no references for this article.

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