Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Database records as a surrogate for sampling effort provide higher species richness estimations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The compilation of all the available taxonomic and distributional information on the species present in a territory frequently generates a biased picture of the distribution of biodiversity due to the uneven distribution of the sampling effort performed. Thus, quality protocol assessments such as those proposed by Hortal et al. (Conservation Biology 21:853–863, 2007) must be done before using this kind of information for basic and applied purposes. The discrimination of localities that can be considered relatively well-surveyed from those not surveyed enough is a key first step in this protocol and can be attained by the previous definition of a sampling effort surrogate and the calculation of survey completeness using different estimators. Recently it has been suggested that records from exhaustive databases can be used as a sampling-effort surrogate to recognize probable well-surveyed localities. In this paper, we use an Iberian dung beetle database to identify the 50 × 50 km UTM cells that appear to be reliably inventoried, using both data derived from standardized sampling protocols and database records as a surrogate for sampling effort. Observed and predicted species richness values in the shared cells defined as well-surveyed by both methods suggest that the use of database records provides higher species richness values, which are proportionally greater in the richest localities by the inclusion of rare species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler PB, Lauenroth WK (2003) The power of time: spatiotemporal scaling of species diversity. Ecol Lett 6:749–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RP (2003) Real vs artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela. J Biogeogr 30:591–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks T, da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004) Species, data, and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 18:1682–1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarucci A, Maccherini S, De Dominicis V (2001) Evaluation and monitoring of the flora in a nature reserve by estimation methods. Biol Conserv 101:305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK (2000) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples (Software and User’s Guide). Version 6.0b1. Available at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/Estimates6/

  • Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 345:101–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Denslow JS, Guariguata MR (1998) Statistical methods for estimating species richness of woody regeneration in primary and secondary rain forests of north-eastern Costa Rica. In: Dallmeir F, Comiskey JA (eds) Forest biodiversity research, monitoring and modelling. Conceptual background and Old World case studies. Parthenon Publishing, Paris, France, pp 285–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (2001) Progressive bias in species status is symptomatic of fine-grained mapping units subject to repeated sampling. Biodivers Conserv 10:483–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (1999) Targeting squares for survey: predicting species richness and incidence for a butterfly atlas. Global Ecol Biogeogr Lett 8:443–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Thomas CD (2000) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder’s home range. J Insect Conserv 4:73–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Sparks TH, Hardy PB (1999) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. J Insect Conserv 3:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NJB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J (2006) The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biol Conserv 128:486–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D (2002) Those complementarity analysis do not reveal extent of conservation conflict in Africa. Science debate. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/293/5535/1591/#381

  • Ferrier S (2002) Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst Biol 51:331–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funk VA, Richardson KS, Ferrier S (2005) Survey-gap analysis in expeditionary research: where do we go from here? Biol J Linn Soc Lond 85:549–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (1994) Rarity. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • GBIF (2003) Global biodiversity information facility strategic plan. Available at www.gbif.org/GBIF_org/documents

  • Gotelli NJ, Collwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham CH, Ferrier S, Huettman F, Moritz C, Peterson AT (2004) New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 19:497–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gu W, Swihart RK (2004) Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biol Conserv 116:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Modell 135:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guralnick RP, Hill AW, Lane M (2007) Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecol Lett 10:663–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Lobo JM (2005) An ED-based protocol for optimal sampling of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:2913–2947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Lobo JM, Martín-Piera F (2001) Forecasting insect species richness scores in poorly surveyed territories: the case of the Portuguese dung beetles (Col. Scarabaeinae). Biodivers Conserv 10:1343–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Borges PA, Gaspar C (2006) Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. J Anim Ecol 75:274–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A (2007) Limitations of biodiversity databases: case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Conserv Biol 21:853–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon R, Oren F, Avinoam D (2004) Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecol Appl 14:401–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamoreux JF, Morrison JC, Ricketts TH, Olson DM, Dinerstein E, McKnight MW, Shugart HH (2005) Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440:212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lobo JM (2008) More complex distribution models or more representative data? Biodiv Inform (in press)

  • Lobo JM, Martín-Piera F (2002) Searching for a predictive model for Iberian dung beetle species richness based on spatial and environmental variables. Conserv Biol 16:158–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobo JM, Baselga A, Hortal J, Jiménez-Valverde A, Gómez JF (2007) How does the knowledge about the spatial distribution of Iberian dung beetle species accumulates over time? Divers Distrib 13:772–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons KG, Brigham CA, Traut BH, Schwartz MW (2005) Rare species and ecosystem functioning. Conserv Biol 19:1019–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Piera F, Lobo JM (2003) Database records as a sampling effort surrogate to predict spatial distribution of insects in either poorly or unevenly surveyed areas. Acta Entomol Ibérica Macaronésica 1:23–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Piera F, López-Colón JI (2000) Fauna Ibérica, vol 14. In: Ramos MA et al (eds) Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea 1. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Madrid, 526 pp

  • Martínez-Meyer E (2005) Climate change and biodiversity: some considerations in forecasting shifts in species potential distributions. Biodivers Inform 2:42–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Neldner VJ, Crossley DC, Cofinas M (1995) Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to determine the adequacy of sampling in vegetation surveys. Biol Conserv 73:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson BW, Ferreira CAC, da Silva MF, Kawasaki ML (1990) Endemism centers, refugia and botanical collection density in Brazilian Amazonia. Nature 345:714–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell JAN, Simpson DA, Moat J, Kirkup DW, Chantaranothai P, Boyce PC, Bygrave P, Dransfield S, Jebb MHP, Macklin J, Meade C, Middleton DJ, Muasya AM, Prajaksood A, Pendry CA, Poomar R, Suddee S, Wilkin P (2003) Plant collecting spread and densities: their potential impact on biogeographical studies in Thailand. J Biogeogr 30:193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson AT, Slade NA (1998) Extrapolating inventory results into biodiversity estimates and the importance of stopping rules. Divers Distrib 4:95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson AT, Navarro-Sigüenza AG, Benítez-Díaz H (1998) The need for continued scientific collecting: a geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens. Ibis 140:288–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy S, Dávalos LM (2003) Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. J Biogeogr 30:1719–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reutter BA, Helfer V, Hirzel AH, Vogel P (2003) Modelling habitat-suitability using museum collections: an example with three sympatric Apodemus species from the Alps. J Biogeogr 30:581–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (1993) Species diversity: regional and historical influences. In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 350–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Romo H, García-Barros E (2005) Distribución e intensidad de los estudios faunísticos sobre mariposas diurnas en la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea y Hesperoidea). Graellsia 61:37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Romo H, García-Barros E, Lobo JM (2006) Identifying recorder-induced geographic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography 29:873–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberón J, Llorente J (1993) The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conserv Biol 7:480–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberón J, Peterson AT (2004) Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:689–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberón J, Llorente J, Benítez H (1996) An international view of national biological surveys. Ann Miss Bot Garden 83:562–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberón JM, Llorente J, Oñate L (2000) The use of specimen-label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican Papilionid and Pierid butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 9:1441–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberón J, Jiménez R, Golubov J, Koleff P (2007) Assessing completeness of biodiversity databases at different spatial scales. Ecography 30:152–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Margules CR, Hilbert DW (2002) Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. J Bioscience 27:327–338

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zaniewski AE, Lehmann A, Overton JM (2002) Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecol Modell 157:261–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the Spanish MEC project CGL2004-0439/BOS, a Fundación BBVA Project, and The European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT) project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), C/ José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006, Madrid, Spain

    Jorge M. Lobo

Authors
  1. Jorge M. Lobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge M. Lobo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lobo, J.M. Database records as a surrogate for sampling effort provide higher species richness estimations. Biodivers Conserv 17, 873–881 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9333-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9333-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation