The energetic equivalence rule rejected because of a potentially common sampling error: evidence from carabid beetles

The energetic equivalence rule rejected because of a potentially common sampling error: evidence... Abundance data from pitfall traps are widely used to estimate the relationship between beetle body size and abundance. Such data probably overestimate densities of large bodied species and may overestimate slopes of size‐abundance relationships. Here, we test this idea by comparing size‐abundance patterns found using data from pitfall trapping with those found with data from a quantitative method of estimating abundance, quadrat sampling. We use data from a total of 47 communities. As expected, slopes of size‐abundance relationships are significantly more positive when estimated using data from pitfall traps compared to when using quadrat sampling data. This was seen when looking across different communities, within communities sampled by both methods and when focusing on the set of species found by both methods within a community. These results were also generally found regardless of method of analysis, which were done using regression with species values as independent data points and using the independent contrast method, and with slopes estimated using ordinary least square regression or the structural relation. Most important, slopes of size‐abundance relationships based on data from pitfall traps were on average significantly more positive than −0.75 on log–log scales, and thus inconsistent with the energetic equivalence rule. Slopes based on quadrat sampling, on the other hand, were on average not significantly different from −0.75. The rejection of the energetic equivalence rule based on data from pitfall traps here is therefore a sampling artefact. Similar problems may apply to abundance data from virtually all insect trapping methods, and should make us consider re‐examining many of the size‐abundance patterns documented so far. As a large proportion of all animal species are insects, and traps are widely used to estimate abundance, this is a potentially important problem for our general understanding of the relationship between species body size and abundance. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oikos Wiley

The energetic equivalence rule rejected because of a potentially common sampling error: evidence from carabid beetles

Oikos, Volume 101 (2) – May 1, 2003

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/the-energetic-equivalence-rule-rejected-because-of-a-potentially-YVqCnmEy2J
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0030-1299
eISSN
1600-0706
D.O.I.
10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11527.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abundance data from pitfall traps are widely used to estimate the relationship between beetle body size and abundance. Such data probably overestimate densities of large bodied species and may overestimate slopes of size‐abundance relationships. Here, we test this idea by comparing size‐abundance patterns found using data from pitfall trapping with those found with data from a quantitative method of estimating abundance, quadrat sampling. We use data from a total of 47 communities. As expected, slopes of size‐abundance relationships are significantly more positive when estimated using data from pitfall traps compared to when using quadrat sampling data. This was seen when looking across different communities, within communities sampled by both methods and when focusing on the set of species found by both methods within a community. These results were also generally found regardless of method of analysis, which were done using regression with species values as independent data points and using the independent contrast method, and with slopes estimated using ordinary least square regression or the structural relation. Most important, slopes of size‐abundance relationships based on data from pitfall traps were on average significantly more positive than −0.75 on log–log scales, and thus inconsistent with the energetic equivalence rule. Slopes based on quadrat sampling, on the other hand, were on average not significantly different from −0.75. The rejection of the energetic equivalence rule based on data from pitfall traps here is therefore a sampling artefact. Similar problems may apply to abundance data from virtually all insect trapping methods, and should make us consider re‐examining many of the size‐abundance patterns documented so far. As a large proportion of all animal species are insects, and traps are widely used to estimate abundance, this is a potentially important problem for our general understanding of the relationship between species body size and abundance.

Journal

OikosWiley

Published: May 1, 2003

References

  • Interspecific allometry of population density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body mass and population energy‐use
    Damuth, Damuth
  • Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
    Lövei, Lövei; Sunderland, Sunderland
  • Phylogeny of carabid beetles as inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
    Maddison, Maddison; Baker, Baker; Ober, Ober
  • The effect of body size on animal abundance
    Peters, Peters; Wassenberg, Wassenberg
  • Linear relations in biomechanics: the statistics of scaling functions
    Rayner, Rayner

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