当前位置: X-MOL 学术Paleobiology › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
On four measures of taxonomic richness
Paleobiology ( IF 2.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-03-16 , DOI: 10.1017/pab.2019.40
John Alroy

The choice of measures used to estimate the richness of species, genera, or higher taxa is a crucial matter in paleobiology and ecology. This paper evaluates four methods called shareholder quorum subsampling, true richness estimated using a Poisson sampling model (TRiPS), squares, and the corrected first-order jackknife (cJ1). Quorum subsampling interpolates to produce a relative richness estimate, while the other three extrapolate to the size of the overall species pool. Here I use routine ecological data to show that squares and cJ1 pass several basic validation tests, but TRiPS does not. First, TRiPS estimates are insensitive to the shape of abundance distributions, being entirely predicted by total counts of species and of individuals regardless of the details. Furthermore, TRiPS tends not to extrapolate at all when sampling is moderate or intense. Second, all three extrapolators yield lower values when they work with small uniform subsamples of large raw inventories. The third test is a split-analyze-and-sum analysis: each inventory is divided between the most common and least common halves of the abundance distribution, the methods are applied to the half-inventories, and the estimates are summed. Squares and cJ1 perform well here, but TRiPS does not extrapolate as long as the full inventories are reasonably well-sampled. It is otherwise not particularly accurate. The extrapolators are largely insensitive to the influence of abundance distribution evenness, as quantified using Pielou's J and a new index called the ratio of means. Quorum subsampling generally performs well, but it stumbles on the split-analyze-and-sum test and is confounded somewhat by evenness.

中文翻译:

关于分类丰富度的四种衡量标准

选择用于估计物种、属或更高级分类群丰富度的措施是古生物学和生态学中的一个关键问题。本文评估了四种方法,称为股东群体二次抽样、使用泊松抽样模型 (TRiPS) 估计的真实丰富度、平方和校正的一阶折刀 (cJ1)。群体二次抽样内插产生相对丰富度估计,而其他三个外推到整个物种库的大小。在这里,我使用常规生态数据来证明 squares 和 cJ1 通过了几个基本的验证测试,但 TRiPS 没有。首先,TRIPS 估计对丰度分布的形状不敏感,完全由物种和个体的总数预测,而不管细节如何。此外,当采样是中等或强烈时,TRIPS 往往根本不会外推。其次,所有三个外推器在处理大量原始库存的小型均匀子样本时都会产生较低的值。第三个测试是拆分分析加和分析:将每个清单划分为丰度分布的最常见和最不常见的一半,将方法应用于一半的清单,并对估计值求和。Squares 和 cJ1 在这里表现良好,但只要完整的库存经过合理采样,TRIPS 就无法推断。否则它不是特别准确。外推器在很大程度上对丰度分布均匀性的影响不敏感,如使用 Pielou 量化的 第三个测试是拆分分析加和分析:将每个清单划分为丰度分布的最常见和最不常见的一半,将方法应用于一半的清单,并对估计值求和。Squares 和 cJ1 在这里表现良好,但只要完整的库存经过合理采样,TRIPS 就无法推断。否则它不是特别准确。外推器在很大程度上对丰度分布均匀性的影响不敏感,如使用 Pielou 量化的 第三个测试是拆分分析加和分析:将每个清单划分为丰度分布的最常见和最不常见的一半,将方法应用于一半的清单,并对估计值求和。Squares 和 cJ1 在这里表现良好,但只要完整的库存经过合理采样,TRIPS 就无法推断。否则它不是特别准确。外推器在很大程度上对丰度分布均匀性的影响不敏感,如使用 Pielou 量化的 但只要对完整的清单进行了合理的抽样,TRIPS 就不会进行推断。否则它不是特别准确。外推器在很大程度上对丰度分布均匀性的影响不敏感,如使用 Pielou 量化的 但只要对完整的清单进行了合理的抽样,TRIPS 就不会进行推断。否则它不是特别准确。外推器在很大程度上对丰度分布均匀性的影响不敏感,如使用 Pielou 量化的Ĵ以及一个新的指标,称为均值比率。Quorum subsampling 通常表现良好,但它在 split-analyze-and-sum 测试中遇到了问题,并且在某种程度上被均匀性所混淆。
更新日期:2020-03-16
down
wechat
bug