Measures of species diversity in ecology: an evaluation

By Z. Hubálek. 2000

86 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6e9aad571a69a05f74e18a09d45dc1b4f402d7f9

How researchers see this paper

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

1. P. Meirmans
2. A. Agostinho
3. S. Kidwell
4. L. Gomes
5. S. Thomaz
6. T. Olszewski
7. Joslin L. Moore
8. P. Hedrick

Citations in the corpus

• O que ganhamos 'confundindo' riqueza de espécies e equabilidade em um índice de diversidade? (2008, unknown): “Diversos trabalhos feitos nas últimas três décadas tentaram responder esta questão avaliando vários índices em variados conjuntos de dados (Wolda 1983, Washington 1984, Danilov & Ekelund 1999, Hubálek 2000).”
• Assessing population structure: FST and related measures (2011, background): “For some uses, this is a desirable property, for example because the heterozygosity very well fits our human interpretation of diversity where changes in small numbers (from 2 to 20) are often considered more important than changes in large numbers (from 20 to 200) (Hubalek 2000).”
• A unified index to measure ecological diversity and species rarity (2008, background): “Thus, they make simple comparisons of samples possible (Hubálek 2000).”
• The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance (2005, background): “…2001, 2005, Walther and Martin 2001, Hughes et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2001, Bohannan and Hughes 2003, see also reviews of species diversity estimators by Lande 1996, Mouillot and Lepêtre 1999 and Hubálek 2000), but the methodological differences between these estimators are of no concern here.”
• The preservational fidelity of evenness in molluscan death assemblages (2007, background): “More commonly, complex abundance data are summarized as a single number or diversity index (e.g., Washington 1984; Magurran 1988, 2004; Smith and Wilson 1996; Hayek and Buzas 1997; Hubálek 2000; Clarke and Warwick 2001; Buzas and Hayek 2005).”