ESTIMATING SPECIES RICHNESS: SENSITIVITY TO SAMPLE COVERAGE AND INSENSITIVITY TO SPATIAL PATTERNS

By U. Brose, Neo D. Martinez, Richard J. Williams. 2003

403 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/274fe44108201cf12f4b37006b4f6f873e8fa7c9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large‐ and medium‐sized terrestrial rainforest mammals (2008, methodology): “In such circumstances, Brose et al. (2003) recommend using Jack 4 for sample coverage of 26–35%, Jack 3 for coverage up to 50%, Jack 2 for coverage up to 74% and Jack 1 for samples with a coverage of 75–96%.”
Species richness and structure of three Neotropical bat assemblages (2008, methodology): “Unless sample coverage is high (above 90%), estimators are likely to underestimate true species richness ( Brose, Martinez & Williams, 2003; Brose & Martinez, 2004).”
Distribution and Endemism of Angiosperms in the Atlantic Forest (2011, methodology): “The decision framework provided by Brose et al. (2003) helped deciding which Jackknife estimator suits better the available data. The Jackknife 1 estimator has been shown to give better results than the other incidence-based estimators, since both seem to be less affected by grain size (Hortal et al”
Local richness and distribution of the lizard fauna in natural habitat mosaics of the Brazilian Cerrado (2009, methodology): “…in any sample, mostly with non-parametric estimators (Colwell & Coddington 1994), often more accurate than the alternative curve-fitting methods (Brose et al. 2003; Walther & Moore 2005), based on rarefaction curves derived from 1000 randomizations of the original sampling order, without…”
Estimating the richness of species with variable mobility (2004, methodology): “In contrast to the present study, the incidence-based first order jacknife estimator of sessile species was less biased and more accurate than ICE under sample coverage of 86 to 96% (Brose et al. 2003).”
Determinants of local spider (Araneidae and Thomisidae) species richness on a regional scale: climate and altitude vs. habitat structure (2007, methodology): “As completeness of inventories differed from location to location, no single non-parametric estimator performed well in all 15 sampling plots; the six calculated (Chao1 and 2, Jackknife1 and 2, ICE and ACE) produced meaningless estimations for different sampling plots ( Brose et al. , 2003 ).”
Scaling of Food-Web Properties with Diversity and Complexity Across Ecosystems (2010, background): “, 2009; Woodward and Hildrew, 2001) or if extrapolation methods suggest a high sampling coverage (Brose and Martinez, 2004; Brose et al., 2003).”
Estimating species richness: calibrating a large avian monitoring programme (2005, methodology): “This estimator has performed consistently well in comparisons (Otis et al . 1978; Palmer 1990, 1991; Brose, Martinez & Williams 2003; Baker 2004) and has become a standard for estimation of species richness and species detectability (Nichols et al . 1998a,b; Boulinier et al . 1998a,b, 2001; Cam et”
Using species distribution models to predict new occurrences for rare plants (2009, background): “, 2003; Sanders & McGraw, 2005); and (3) presence where, even in optimal habitat, saturation may be low and/or a species may be cryptic (Brose et al., 2003; Linkie et al., 2006; Hare et al., 2007).”
Taxonomic and functional homogenization of an endemic desert fish fauna (2012, background): “Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of fish records existed in our dataset, as is common in studies examining community composition trends from compiled data bases (Brose et al., 2003).”