ArticlePloS one2018
Using museum specimens to estimate broad-scale species richness: Exploring the performance of individual-based and spatially explicit rarefaction.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimates of spatial patterns of broad-scale species richness are central to major questions in ecology, evolution and conservation. Yet, they are scarce due to incomplete information on species distributions. Often the only germane data derives from museum specimens collected during non-standardized sampling. Rarefaction, a promising approach to estimate broad-scale richness with these data, estimates the expected number of species represented in subsets of n specimens drawn from N specimens collected in a sampling unit. One version of rarefaction, known as individual-based rarefaction, assumes that the N specimens collected in a sampling unit constitute a random sample of individuals in that sampling unit. Another version, known as spatially explicit rarefaction, assumes that the N specimens collected in a sampling unit are spatially aggregated. We examined the working hypothesis that, when applied to museum specimen data, spatially explicit rarefaction is less biased than individual-based rarefaction because it reduces overestimation due to spatially aggregated sampling. We derived five predictions from this working hypothesis and tested them using computer simulation experiments based on a database of 129,782 plant specimens from Nicaragua, and sampling units of 5 x 5, 50 x 50, and 100 x 100 km. One experiment was a negative control, whereby we simulated collection of randomly chosen individuals from each sampling unit. In contrast, three other experiments included spatially aggregated sampling. In all experiments we applied individual-based and spatially explicit rarefaction to estimate richness, with n = 200 and n = 500 specimens. As expected, the experiment designed as a negative control did not support the working hypothesis. The other three experiments supported the working hypothesis in analyses of larger sampling units, but not in 5 x 5 km sampling units. The predictions we derived from the working hypothesis can be used to assess which rarefaction version is best in particular systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.