Blog
About

16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Undersampling bias: the null hypothesis for singleton species in tropical arthropod surveys.

      The Journal of Animal Ecology

      physiology, Tropical Climate, Male, Female, Models, Biological, Monte Carlo Method, Population Dynamics, Selection Bias, Sex Ratio, Spiders, Animals, Biodiversity

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          1. Frequency of singletons - species represented by single individuals - is anomalously high in most large tropical arthropod surveys (average, 32%). 2. We sampled 5965 adult spiders of 352 species (29% singletons) from 1 ha of lowland tropical moist forest in Guyana. 3. Four common hypotheses (small body size, male-biased sex ratio, cryptic habits, clumped distributions) failed to explain singleton frequency. Singletons are larger than other species, not gender-biased, share no particular lifestyle, and are not clumped at 0.25-1 ha scales. 4. Monte Carlo simulation of the best-fit lognormal community shows that the observed data fit a random sample from a community of approximately 700 species and 1-2 million individuals, implying approximately 4% true singleton frequency. 5. Undersampling causes systematic negative bias of species richness, and should be the default null hypothesis for singleton frequencies. 6. Drastically greater sampling intensity in tropical arthropod inventory studies is required to yield realistic species richness estimates. 7. The lognormal distribution deserves greater consideration as a richness estimator when undersampling bias is severe.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01525.x
          19245379

          Comments

          Comment on this article